User talk:Jimbo Wales/Archive 130

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


Live video pictures of the Earth

Plans are under way for the International Space Station to begin, on October 16, 2013, the transmission of live video pictures of the Earth to the Internet.

Wavelength (talk) 23:48, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

We might need to explain word "Urthe" ('earth') in the near future! -Wikid77 13:15, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
Also, I found no mention on the website that "Urthecast" might be read as "You are the cast".
Wavelength (talk) 14:58, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Wisdom needed

Freedom of panorama and Threshold of originality keep popping up regarding images of 3D sculptures and PD 'no threshold met' works on commons and en:wp. There are some recent and crucial issues being discussed in the last day or so and less recent ones as well. See: WT:PW (the urgent post) for the issue on image deletions of trophies and the deletion discussion for File:CFIA-ACIA heraldic emblem.jpg for logo deletions that can be replaced with new .svg versions. Both issues may have many images deleted in the next while. FOP is not allowed in the USA and I hope that may change some day. Fair use images of PD logos are not allowed if we can create one from scratch. I could go into more detail but the links above already have most of it. Other editors including myself have emailed the people that hand out trophies and we have yet to recieve a response. Could we possibly have an 'official' note sent to award/trophy owners to possibly release images of their 3D works in a blanket OTRS? This could include Nobel prize awards down to Rotary Club ribbons. The list would not be that long to start and probably have more jump on the bandwagon once they see the advantage of image releases. Scalable Vector Graphics are far beyond my skills and many others in the projects. Could we possibly fund some graphic artists to replace our 'fair use' images that are ripped from the net and are actually PD if created from scratch? I could go on, but I will let you and others digest and comment first.--Canoe1967 (talk) 03:44, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

The US does in fact allow a sort of FOP on buildings and structures just not on sculpture. Pay for SVG images...? Er, can I get on that mailing list? LOL! We actually have WikiProject project for requests. You can ask me and I am willing to voluntarily create SVGs from Inkscape. There is also a list of editors who also will take requests at Wikipedia:WikiProject Images and Media/Illustration taskforce.--Amadscientist (talk) 05:17, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
By the way, the issue with heraldic emblems and Coat of Arms is that, while the emblem or COA may be in the public domain, the actual versions created by the artist is not. So if we simply create an SVG from the version found that is a recent version, it is copyrighted to that artiest. We must create an entirely new and original version that would have to be based on a version old enough to be PD.--Amadscientist (talk) 05:22, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
Emblem of the Papacy SE.svg

Just a side note. If anyone happened to catch all the coverage of the Vatican and Pope over the last month or so...I saw this COA used on flags, posters and t-shirts like crazy. I kept pointing it out and everyone was asking me "Why would the Vatican use a Wikipedia image when they have professional artists that can do this sort of thing?". My answer was a question: ""Do they? They aren't exactly known for their computer images these days are they?"--Amadscientist (talk) 05:37, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

The .svg issue is just a matter of replacing them with images from scratch. I could email the Canadian Justice Minister (our copyright guy) to release all the heraldry images from sites but he hasn't responded to previous emails I sent. The Canadian Space Agency did release rights on pictures taken by Chris Hadfield with the same PD licence as NASA shots after an email from a commmons user. We are kicking around a new tack about Freedom of panorama at the wrestling project talk page. See: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Professional_wrestling#VERY_URGENT_MATTER for more details and input.--Canoe1967 (talk) 00:02, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
If the elements from the image that is in danger of deletion is common it could be recreated with relative ease. Let me look into it.--Amadscientist (talk) 08:46, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
Well, the elements are almost all taken from the COA of Canada. Here is an svg file where elements already exist at commons to build with.[1]--Amadscientist (talk) 09:01, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
The combination of professional wrestling and an uppercase URGENT - reliable indicators of lame edit wars, senseless drama, adolescent posturing and the complete absence of any sense of perspective. Cynical? Why, yes. Guy (Help!) 11:34, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
I think you misunderstand the issue. I am far from a wrestling fan but am trying to help them with their images. I have explained why they will probably be deleted unless they fall under De minimis or Freedom of panorama. De min may not wash in articles on the belts themselves because then they become the focus and defeat the spirit of de min. They are not edit-warring nor posturing that I have noticed. They would just like to seek a solution that will have many images deleted from many of their articles. File:Oscar statuette.jpg can be deleted for the same reasons if someone were inclined. We can host a free licence image of it if we receive permission from the rights holder of the sculpture thus the rationale that it 'can't be replaced' with a free licence image shouldn't be allowed. I may just email the Academy and see if they will provide us with an official image of it. We could also host a free licence image of the same statue if it is on display in a public place in a country that allows FOP. Am I making sense as to why we should find a solution to the many fair use images we have in many articles that are actually in violation of policy? We have at least three outcomes at this point: 1) Get permission from the rights holders for images. 2) Use images from countries that allow FOP. 3) Delete them all.--Canoe1967 (talk) 22:02, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
I have the Hockey project discussing images as well now.--Canoe1967 (talk) 14:35, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Batmobiles being deleted

I guess there is a court case that decided the Batmobile is a 3D sculpture and not a utilitarian vehicle. All the images on commons will probably be deleted unless we can get DC Comics to license the images. We can't truly claim fair use because they may licence some or if they ever left the country there may be FOP images of them.--Canoe1967 (talk) 19:17, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Editors may wish to pop over to commons and see the discussions at the deletion review and com/pump/copyright. Many feel this is an important issue on images.--Canoe1967 (talk) 04:45, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

WP works well on IE8 browsers

This is just FYI that I have confirmed, personally, how Wikipedia now works well on IE8 browsers, with default Vector skin, to display text, images, and box borders, as well as to precisely position dots on locator maps. In prior years, the screen would drop box-borders on IE8 while text just scrolled down the screen. However, in March 2013, during spring break, I was able to use some hotel Internet "guest" computers, which were using the typical old IE8 browser, from "way back" in 2009. Those hotel computers also had recent Firefox 19.0, as an alternate desktop icon, along with Explorer. In multiple tests of article display, or article editing with map locator dots, the IE8 browser support was solid. Recent WP news has also noted the Wikidata changes have affected IE8, but I am not sure if those Wikidata efforts are responsible for the better performance of all editing on IE8 browsers.

Nostalgia skin removal 15 April 2013: A related issue is the plan to remove the old "&useskin=nostalgia" support, this month, which had been able to run IE7 browsers without lockup problems. However, I have not recently used IE7 (at other hotels or public libraries), so I can only assume that the improved support for IE8 (with default Vector skin) will also reduce the problems on IE7 Vector, so that access to Nostalgia skin will no longer be crucial for IE7 users to avoid lockups. -Wikid77 13:15, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

ewwww.... internet explorer. I somewhat doubt than many places, other than some schools, who can't seem to ever update their software, are running IE7. I personally don't use IE, as it ... well... it's internet explorer, need I say more? anyways, I find Wikipedia works great on any browser I use. -- Aunva6talk - contribs 16:52, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Even IE6 3x more popular than IE7 2% but IE8 23% of market: I have seen IE7 used in the Internet "guest" computers of major hotel chains (with Windows Vista), so even at 2 per 100 users, then IE7 is more popular than some older versions of Chrome or Firefox. However, it is ironic that IE6 still had 6% of browser market share in March 2013 (source: [2]), as 3x more than IE7, which was most-likely upgraded by owners to IE8, the most-popular of all browser versions at the start of 2013. IE8 is a tabbed browser, with some spell-check highlighting, and easily shows "View Source" of the HTML into a text editor with line numbers. Part of the popularity of MSIE is from momentum of years of leadership, coupled with better security than other browsers against malware in prior years. However, the newer versions of Chrome or Safari should be safer now. Anyway, with full WP support restored now for IE8 (even precisely aligning map-locator dots), then it will be interesting to compare WP browser shares, and growth of editor activity, during the next 6 months. -Wikid77 (talk) 05:54, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Well, Rich Farmbrough just got blocked for a year

See Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive131#Rich_Farmbrough - he's been blocked for a year for what was arguably, IMHO, manual editing with typos. I don't like that fact one bit, and Jimbo, you shouldn't either. Time to reign in ArbCom and the anti-Farmbrough zealots, somebody, please. I make typos, and I've screwed up articles, and some of those errors have been committed with (gasp!) search (f3)/replace (ctrl-V), right in the edit window. But I'll be damned if I'm going to let the precedent stand that two editors can block a long-standing, productive, enthusiastic, skilled (ok, sometimes overenthusiastic) editor for a year, based on guesswork and an exaggeration of a now years-old ArbCom decision that didn't make sense in the first place. --Lexein (talk) 16:19, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

It's quite obvious that he did a global search and replace and didn't bother to check the results, leaving other editors to clean up the mess. Leaving the mess for others is the recurring problem, and there seems to be no way to prevent him from doing it except a total block from editing. Looie496 (talk) 16:44, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
Lexein, it's obvious you're angry about this and it's understandable that you would be if you feel an injustice was done, but this is now the fourth place you've attempted to get action on this issue. Please, pick one spot, have a discussion, and stop running around to a new place each time you don't get an answer quickly or don't get the one you want. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 16:53, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
It's unfair to criticize Lexein for the first venue listed "pointily" above, because apparently that was an inappropriate venue. The record of this response to the block was suppressed prior to the block getting archived, as there is no link from the archived action to the talkpage response to it. There was already an active discussion at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests when that dialogue was dumped at the bottom of it. The next edit further obscured this dialogue. Wbm1058 (talk) 18:05, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
No, three, I undid one. Actually two, since one is merely an advisory of discussion occurring elsewhere. This IMHO deserves wide exposure. If I have to take a little friendly fire for posting in the most appropriate venues for active discussion, I'll take it. And Looie496, I don't think it's obvious at all, since I've made that very same class of mistakes without using global search and replace. However, I agree that editors should not leave messes for others to clean up, but I don't think Farmbrough has refused to clean up when asked. So why not leave it at asking? That's my whole point. --Lexein (talk) 17:10, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
The main problem is this Wikipedia notion of trying to require editors with an identified issue to become paragons. To ask him to avoid automated edits that would start other users on the road to trouble ... fine. But to demand he not use tools that everyone else can, and hold even a single slip-up as reason to ban him for a year? You've deliberately set yourselves up to fail, and congratulations! You succeeded. Wnt (talk) 19:44, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
I was pretty surprised to see rich banned again so quickly so I wanted to see what for. I can't really figure it out. Can someone please explain in detail what it was for exactly.--Amadscientist (talk) 23:01, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
apparently, screwing up using semi-automated tools (which he was forbidden to use), copy-pasting the edits in. i assume they mean like reflinks and checklinks. -- Aunva6talk - contribs 00:44, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
Lexein is not the only one that thinks a 1 year block is too severe, if a block is even warranted at all, which it isn't. I really wasn't surprised at all personally Amadscientist. The same editor that opened the AE thread has been trying to get Rich blocked for years. The one who imposed this block tried to block Rich for a year when he imposed the last 2 month block but backed down when a year block didn't have community support then. Apparently it still doesn't and for good reason. A 1 year block (the limit of the admin tools as far as I know) should be reserved for severe cases like Copyright violations and vandals. Not longterm editors for frivolous edits. KumiokoCleanStart (talk) 01:49, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
Ah. I see. Involved admin finding a way to get their way. LOL! No wonder admin are looked at with suspicion most of the time.--Amadscientist (talk) 01:57, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
Wnt, Rich was not blocked a year for "a single slip up". He was blocked for a year for what was only the latest error from an editor with a multi-year history of errors that have inevitably been left for everyone else to clean up. Wikipedia editors don't need to be paragons, but frankly, competence is required. Perhaps it is time we stop putting up with Rich's incompetence. Resolute 02:06, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
Errors can be fixed by others. That is a policy or guideline as well. Now demonstrate that those errors constituted a lack of competency. I am dead serious.--Amadscientist (talk) 02:10, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
Any editor who is responsible for 5 million edits is going to make mistakes. I would rather fix somee mistakes of someone who would do 5 million edits to make this place better than zero defects from the editor who would do 5 edits and leave me nothing to fix. KumiokoCleanStart (talk) 02:13, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
There isn't much else you can call nine blocks for problematic, erronious and/or unsupported automated edits, Amadscientist. The simple fact is, neither restrictions nor short blocks have had any effect on his editing behaviour. Errors can be fixed by others, but others should not be expected to put up indefinitely with an editor who produces so many. He was given numerous chances, and blew every single one. Resolute 02:22, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
I can think of a couple things. Hounding, Stalking, shall I go on! A couple of those 9 blocks are valid, at least 6 are complete bullshit. KumiokoCleanStart (talk) 02:26, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
Whatever good a person has done, whatever experience he can gain, it floats away on the breeze, without substance. But all his demerits go on his permanent record. It is enough to make a person wonder if all of the good done by any of us is only an illusion. Wnt (talk) 07:14, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
A year in the briar patch for Ixian collaborators -- what could possibly go wrong? This bodes well for collaboration, even if not the sort that was intended. (talk) 02:45, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
Well Resolute, there is your basic argument....and then there is the argument that is proposed by the above IP user. If you look at my block log you will see a number of blocks. Some are indeed not worth the efforts to block me. The first one was my own stupidity and ignorance with Wikipedia policy and when given the chance not to be blocked ( the blocking admin gave me a chance not to be blocked at all over the issue) for the 3RR situation I found myself in I was stupid enough to state that I should be blocked even if I did not understand what I had done, thinking I was being the better person. No...I was being the "stupider" person. Something I have vowed never to do again. Another block was a mistake made by the Admin who blocked me over a single edit that all parties involved (even the reverted editor) explained was a legitimate revert and that I was working with the editor to resolve the content in question. Block logs don't say much. They simply state that a block was made...not that they were justified.--Amadscientist (talk) 07:15, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

He is a top editor and template expert

For people unaware of his background, User:Rich Farmbrough (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) is a long-term user (and admin) who is among the top few editors with the highest edit-count, over 1 million edits, and not just minor changes, but large rewrites, plus 1,572 new articles. He is also a template expert, and years ago, he began developing fast-cite templates to generate wp:CS1 cites (with COinS metadata) which ran 10-15x times faster than old Template:Cite_web, to reduce a 20-30 second edit-preview down to just 2-3 seconds of reformatting. That was at a time when most major nation articles each reformatted over 25 seconds, such as "Israel" often running over 45 seconds to edit-preview. Due to Rich's successful fast-cite ideas, the new Template:Cite_quick was developed and improved and has cut 20-30 seconds off the reformat times of massive articles, even avoiding fatal page-size limits, another issue which Rich had solved years ago. However, instead of following his wise advice, or trying to compromise, other people fought his advancements for over a year. At the time of the recent 1-year block, when editing numerous articles, he had made hundreds of corrections and updates, during several edits, to new article "Mohan Deep" where he was accused of making 3 apostrophe errors by use of search-and-replace editing (see "Madhubala" in edit of 180 changes: dif-82). Anyway, the deterioration of talks between Rich and other admins gives evidence that Wikipedia has serious collaboration problems in the admin ranks. The Swedish Wikipedia, since 2006, has used 1-year term limits to remove admins, as easier to avoid bitter feelings, and I think enwiki is seeing more evidence of the dangers of the "imperial admin" elite class. -Wikid77 (talk) 11:08, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

8 very similar apostrophe errors, not 3. The "hundreds of corrections and updates, during several edits" were only made after the errors in the first one were pointed out at the ArbCom enforcement, when he suddenly returned to the Mohan Deep page two days after his sole edit to it. And Rich isn't an admin anymore, he was desysoped on 15 May 2012. Fram (talk) 13:43, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
Really, wow, 8 whole errors. That certainly does change things and makes a 1 year block warranted. (sarcasm intended). I also find it more thana little suspicious that its the same Admin/editor who seems to always find these problems. On obscure articles no less. The only plausible way that could happen is if said admin (thats you by the way Fram) watched a certain editors edits constantly just checking to see what was done on the article. Only a couple days after being unblocked no less. That seems a whole lot like Houdning, Harrassment and Stalking to me. But what do I know. i'm not an admin right. Only an admin would be able to recognize those things and only an admin would be able to interpret violations of those. KumiokoCleanStart (talk) 16:36, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
Oh, shut up already. If all you're going to do is toss into the mix intentionally-sarcastic bombs, then this discussion would be much better served by your absence. Farmbrough is a very well-known and notoriously problematic editor, it is not surprising or even unusual if the same admin or admins are the ones to highlight misdeeds, as they are the ones most familiar with the matter. It isn't "stalking" or "houdning" [sic] to check in on an editor with the history that Farmbrough has. It isn't even an admin-exclusive thing...if say by some staggering miracle Grundle2600 was ever let back in, you can be damn sure I'd be clicking on Special:Contributions/Grundle2600 once in awhile. Tarc (talk) 16:45, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
Sure I get that some editors have a problem with his edits. But not all of us, probably not even a majority, that's why the case went through the Arbitration committee so they could make an Arbitrary decision about a situation that failed to gain consensus in the community. As I have stated before. Any editor who is responsible for 5 million edits is going to have some problems. I would also counter that the majority of the complaints about Rich's editing were not about the "problems" but about the minor edits. Some editors feel that minor edits are important enough to ban an editor from the community or that 1000 easily fixable errors out of millions is a valid reason to block. I don't and never have denied that there were problems with some of his edits. We all make mistakes. What I am saying is that we should not be doling out 1 year blocks to an editor who has done by far more good than harm because a couple editors with the admin tools are butt hurt that he wouldn't respond to their comments and continual harrassment. KumiokoCleanStart (talk) 22:57, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Need better ways to work with highly intelligent people: In many cases, after working with highly intelligent people, I have found that they "do not suffer fools gladly" so it is important, when working with them, to be alert and not "waste their time" with potentially petty issues. Perhaps we need an essay "wp:How to work with intelligent people" so that the social dynamics can be better understood. In general, Wikipedia's rules for "crowd control" seem naive, or sophomoric, and many intelligent people will not react well under such conditions, merely pretend while they roll their eyes. There needs to be tolerance for trivial "8 errors" among "200 corrections" made in a single edit, and nitpicking at that level, is likely to breed contempt with intelligent people. I suggest we develop a core of "gradmins" as people with advanced degrees in various fields and advanced social skills, and have them interface with the highly intelligent people, to try to establish a common dialogue. -Wikid77 00:51, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
I thought you (Wikid77) were taking credit for the {{Cite_quick}} templates. If Rich had been responsible for installing even one, he would have been immediately blocked.... — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:27, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Rich had created "Template:Cite_web_quick" in October 2011, which was used in some articles, but it was later "removed without incident" and was wp:TfD-deleted on 7 January 2012. It ran 10x-15x times faster than old Template:Cite_web (in reconstructed comparisons) but was not fully understood for its future potential, to quicken large articles to edit-preview within 5 seconds rather than 20-45 seconds. Also, it would have been perfect in translating articles to other-language wikipedias, where they could have formatted the copied citations which are often accepted as-is in preparation to find native-language sources later. -Wikid77 00:51, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
  • No, he didn't. Amalthea created the template in March 2011; in October 2011, Rich Farmbrough made one edit to the template, and self-reverted one minute later. He essentially didn't create and didn't contribute anything to that template (which isn't a problem, of course; but he shouldn't get credit or blame incorrectly). Fram (talk) 09:35, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Please tell me this isn't over apostrophe errors.--Amadscientist (talk) 02:30, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
It apparently started with "8 apostrophes" overlooked in Bollywood author article "Mohan Deep" (see 180 changes: dif-82)), and then Rich was threatened with a block, so he continued editing and made about 1,343 repetitive changes to "List of Other Backward Classes" where a footnote reftag was added into 1,343 entries. Issuing threats is not very effective with intelligent people. Anyway, it was considered a violation of his prior ban against using search-and-replace, or even copy/paste, when he was limited to using keyboard characters only, during edits. I cannot even think of trying to edit in that manner. Imagine getting an edit-conflict and not allowed to copy/paste the prior inserted replies, into the current conversation text. It is such cruelty that it could be considered inhuman, so I would recommend to reduce the restrictions to a workable compromise, such as 300 changes per article (or such). Anyway, the final conclusion, about using "automated edits" (for 3 articles) is in wp:AE section "WP:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Result concerning Rich Farmbrough". -Wikid77 05:19, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
He edited Mohan Deep, mixing improvements with errors in a way that violated his arbcom restriction. He only went back to edit the article again after the errors were pointed out. Similarly, he added the same ref to some 1000 entries in a list, but made an error with it, so that the ref didn't show up but created one of those big red cite ref errors in the ref section. Again, he didn't notice this and only corrected it after I had noticed it. Considering that this is the same pattern that lead to his community and arbcom restrictions and previous blocks, taking swift action instead of letting this go on and on is the normal solution (and exactly what AE is intended for). "It is such cruelty that it could be considered inhuman" qualifies for the over-the-top statement of the year though. Fram (talk) 07:50, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
So, let me get this straight. We blocked the second highest contributor the encyclopedia has for a year over making errors so that it would have the appearance of being "swift" due to arbcom sanctions even after he corrected them. Yep...this project has some serious problems that may well end very badly. Very badly indeed. Meanwhile we have an editor making unsubstantiated claims about others that are being taken seriously in the media making us all look like asses, and that same editor is deeply involved in both the article they are making claims about and the policy page that it involves and no one gives a flying bleep about that. Wow....just freaking WOW.--Amadscientist (talk) 08:07, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
Do you know any of the backstory, Amadscientist? One of the elements in the earlier cases was that he doesn't check his automated edits (the results of his automation), and that it is up to others to check them (and usually, those people then get flak for hounding him, and are told to leave it alone and that others will do it, even though those others never materialize). One of the reasons for the restrictions is that we don't want an editor using automation but needing one or more nannies to clean up after him. The result is that now, after years of patience, chances, more chances, ..., he is on a much shorter leash than other editors, and was lucky to even have that instead of a full ban. Fram (talk) 08:39, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
Would you mind clarifying, Fram, what percentage of edits made by Rich Farmbrough since he came off his last block contain errors? --Epipelagic (talk) 08:19, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
Yes, I would mind. I'm not going to spend even more time on this, to give you figures which are unrelated to this case. If someone has e.g. an interaction ban, we don't count the number of edits he makes that don't violate the interaction ban. Why would we treat this restriction differently? Fram (talk) 08:39, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
I take from your reluctance to disclose the percentage that it is infinitesimally small. I can't edit without occasionally making an error. So this is very disconcerting. --Epipelagic (talk) 09:03, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
You can take whatever you want, whether it involves ABF or not. But I don't think you have e.g. made 500 identical errors when running a bot (at first on your own account, then as a bot), then found out that you made the error, correct your bot, continue with the task but never bother to go back to correct those 500 errors? Rich Farmbrough did, I corrected them two months later. This is not about error-free editing. Fram (talk) 09:30, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
I'll give you some errors added between his block expired and the AE case was filed. These are only some examples of uncorrected errors, he also made some errors which he corrected in a further edit, seems a bit pointless to include these as well. I don't see what the relevance of this is for this discussion, but since you seem to find it important enough to ask but not important enough to research for yourself, a few examples:
  • [3] changes "LISTE DÉFINITIVE DES DÉPUTÉS ÉLUS À L’ISSUE DES DEUX TOURS" in "Liste Définitive Des Déeputés Élus À L’issue Des Deux Ttours", adding an error in "Députés" and in "Tours".
  • [4] adds "perecntqage"
  • [5] changes a "prorector" in a "proctor", even though they are not the same and a prorector was correct here
  • [6] adds a badly formatted piece of WP:OR to the article at the bottom. I reverted it some 2 1/2 days later, and the article was subsequently semi-protected by Bearian with the reason "Addition of unsourced or poorly sourced content: Recent need to rv WP:OR, important article"
I haven't checked all his edits, only some of those in the mainspace, but I think it is pretty clear that despite what you incorrectly inferred from my reluctance to waste my time on hardly relevant sidetracks, the percentage is clearly not "infinitesimally small".
Note that I'm not claiming that these involve automation, that I'm also not claiming that these warrant any further action, and that I only searched for and added these because people started drawing incorrect conclusions from my reluctance to do so. I would prefer if people would ignore this section and focus on the core aspects of the AE enforcement (or drop it altogether of course). Finally, this is a sample, not a definitive, exhaustive research. I'm not going to try to make a definitive, complete list so people can find the exact percentage. If anyone wants that anyway, they can do the work as well. Fram (talk) 10:21, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Fram you don't have to repeat anything but if you could point me in the direction of where I can find the backstory that would be a start.--Amadscientist (talk) 09:15, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Rich Farmbrough Fram (talk) 09:30, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

If someone has a restraining order, e.g. to stay at least 500 m away from the house of his former wife and children, and he violates that restraining order, he will get arrested, even if he was cleaning graffiti or helping old ladies cross the street at the time. The offense for which he was arrested may seem very minor, but the backstory explains a lot. (Obviously, neither the situation nor the result here are of a criminal nature, it's just an analogy, before anyone reads this the wrong way). Fram (talk) 09:30, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

It turns out I was familiar with some of the back story, if even just a small amount. It also does appear, at the very least, that Rich can't seem to let go of the use of automated tools to make huge amounts of edits. Which does at least illustrate the point that high edit count does not mean quality editing.--Amadscientist (talk) 10:27, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
There was a lot more to the Rich F Arbcom case than what Fram presents above. For one, the Arbs decided that he should be desusopped largely because he unblocked his own bot which was and still is common practice among Admin bot operators. Next there is the issue of Fram's involvement. Rich and others including myself repeatedly asked Fram to walk away and quite hounding. Rich couldn't even log in without Fram commenting about some edit. If things are that bad then there are more than enough editors and admins who will comment. After a while Rich just stopped responding to Fram altogether. If Fram would have been willing to accept he was involved (something that he still refuses to do) things would be much smotther and there would be a whole lot less drama. Another factor in Rich's case was that of creating categories. Most of which still exist by the way and are perfectly fine. Some folks just didn't like them because they act as a marker for Sockpuppets and vandals. Then there was the issue of minor edits, not errors but minor edits that really don't amount to anything so whether the bot does or doesn't do them is completely irrelevant to anything unless someone is looking for a reason to argue and block another user. Then we get to the issue of errors. Very few of these were caused by the bot, most of them (still rather few comparitavely speaking) were done by Rich while testing new code to add to the bot. Then there is the issue of complaints from people about him and his bots doing too many edits and filling their wathclists. They didn't like seeing all these edits done to their favoriate articles so they asked him to slow down. Really? Too many edits are filling up my watchlist is just about the stupidest argument possible and yet it was one of the justifications used. When you wrap all this up into one package, Rich was banned for trying to do to much, too fast. He as too willing to use technology to make this place better and some of the purists that don't like bots or would prefer bots don't edit got annoyed. Some editors got annoyed at their watchlists filling up and some others though that a zero defect mentality is necessary for bot operators. 99% of all these arguments are complete, utter bullshit. Pure and simple. KumiokoCleanStart (talk) 19:10, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
I can't really say I agree with the block or even the things arbcom stated in the link Fram left. Some of it really disturbs me such as guessing at whether he was using an automated tool without real proof and just saying the speed and accuracy looks like it had to be a tool. Frankly that is something I see as just an accusation from Arbcom without justification. To me if Arbcom has to guess at things to make decisions they shouldn't be a part of their decision. On the other hand it wasn't a single case or issue and looks like there were enough warnings and previous issues (regardless of the accuracy or importance of those issues) that the entire situation was bound to be revisited. But if the committee chooses a path and editors disagree with it...then there must be a route to take and if not...maybe there should be a community discussion to form something solid.--Amadscientist (talk) 01:38, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
I've seen a lot of stupid things on Wikipedia, but this one just about puts all of them to shame. Forbidding the use of copy-paste isn't even remotely close to enforceable. As Amadscientist points out, ArbCom have given themselves the power to create facts out of thin air, determining whether or not an automated process was being used, essentially based on a hunch. They made an accusation and failed to provide evidence for it. What's that called when someone who isn't an arbitrator does it? Hmm, let me think... let's see here... Whatever arbitrators signed on to that idiotic sanction should be forcibly removed from their positions. Now let's all go back to trying to figure out why we're hemorrhaging editors (I wonder!). Evanh2008 (talk|contribs) 03:10, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
I don't see a possible route of forcing arbitrators out. They seem to be resigning anyway on their own. I would ask if we are seeing something of Sea change going on in regards to Arbcom though. I think there have been a number of recent situations where there is real concern from editors at all levels. I think the main issue (to me anyway) is that I can't see how much trust to put in a group that locks themselves away in secret to work. I strongly feel that Arbcom needs to come out of the dark and begin working in full transparency. There will always be instances where privacy will be required, but that should only be when dealing with personal information.--Amadscientist (talk) 09:00, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
What part of the Rich Farmbrough case was done "in secret"? And please keep in mind that the unhappy people are usually more likely to raise their voice than the happy ones; while there are quite a few issues where ArbCom has gotten some flak recently, this doesn't necessarily mean that most editors are concerned about ArbCom. As an example: you are here now complaining about the original Farmbrough case, but the ArbCom that decided this wasn't really shoed away at the last ArbCom elections (at least those members that were up for reelection), while usually the most vocal critics of the ArbCom, the ones wanting a complete change, get relatively little support at such elections. This seems to indicate that there is a "silent majority" which is in general more than happy with the way that ArbCom handles things (without necessarily agreeing with all their decisions or comments). Obviously, it is possible that this has changed over the course of the last few months, but I doubt that a case from May 2012 will have anything to do with that. Fram (talk) 09:17, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
"you are here now complaining about the original Farmbrough case" Am I? Gee I thought I was just discussing the issue. Thanks for correcting me so that I know what I was actually thinking and doing. Gosh, I really do need others to tell me what I mean and you do it so well.....NOT. I support Arbcom, but they do indeed spend much too much time discussing cases with each other via e-mail. Sorry you don't get that. I like things to be accurate as well, and don't like guess work. Sorry for being such a stickler for such things. Just me.--Amadscientist (talk) 14:30, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
I can't help you if you prefer misplaced sarcasm over an out-of-context quote, instead of actually arguing with rational arguments. If so much of the ArbCom discussion and decision was done in secret, then why are they still disagreeing when it comes to the voting? All a charade? Looking at the quality of discussion concerning this AE enforcement block, I can understand that people would prefer to have the discussion somewhere more private though, it would probably significantly improve the signal-to-noise ratio. Fram (talk) 15:15, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

What purpose does this block serve?

Serious question: how does Wikipedia benefit from this block? Prioryman (talk) 01:26, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

People need to understand that if you violate an Arbitration Committee and 2 community-placed sanctions, you will get blocked in standard escalation. Rich has admitted to me that he used automation (find and replace), and in a few hours worth of conversation with me has basically shown no remorse, no willingness to admit he was wrong, and no intention to stop violating his sanctions. Therefore, the block benefits Wikipedia by not having users around who violate ArbCom sanctions, and who show no remorse when they're blocked for doing so. gwickwiretalkediting 01:31, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
Presumably it has the "feel good" factor for Sandstein and Fram, and the rest of that component of the Wikipedia community who are here, not so much to build content, but more to ensure that "justice" and retribution are dealt out to those who are here to build content. There's no way to avoid this, since it seems built into the human condition. The content building community will always need to supply a steady stream of sacrifices. --Epipelagic (talk) 01:47, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
The justice is being dealt out as you call it to someone who violated 2 community bans multiple times, and now an ArbCom sanction multiple times. You're saying that the community, and ArbCom, has/have no power over other editors, and that's blatantly false. He violated sanctions, he knew he was doing so, he isn't remorseful or sorry he did it, and he doesn't wish to stop violating said bans. He admitted that he used an automated find and replace tool on the articles in question, and knew that was in violation of his ban. That earns him a block to prevent the integrity of community/ArbCom sanctions from going to waste. It's just like why was Kevin desysopped a while ago, because ArbCom wanted to protect the integrity of functionary blocks temporarily. He was resysopped because he said he would respect that, and Rich can't be unblocked because we know he won't respect that. Maybe in 1 year Rich will be mature and thoughtful enough to not go against 3 different sanctions... If you remember, these sanctions were his only way out of a complete site ban, which in all honesty probably would've saved us all this trouble. gwickwiretalkediting 01:51, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
And how does this pretence at legitimate jurisprudence play out in practice? How much of the encyclopaedia has actually been built as a result of you focusing in this way on these issues? --Epipelagic (talk) 02:18, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
Oh you all need to stop this crap for lack of a better word. You are grasping at straws to get him unblocked. It's clear he violated his ban multiple times since it was imposed. Do you suggest we just ignore that fact and destroy ArbCom's credibility? No. gwickwiretalkediting 02:43, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
Gwickwire, please don't comment on the "maturity" of your betters. It's redlining my irony meter, and I'm worried you're going to break it. --Floquenbeam (talk) 02:46, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
So you're saying it's perfectly normal and sane and mature for someone to violate every sanction placed on them willingly and knowingly, and then claim "oh I didn't know that was in there" or "oh it was beneficial so what?"... I'm done here, as there's no way I can continue this after my conversations with him, if only you could see them (they're all in -en on IRC, so if you wish to look).. gwickwiretalkediting 02:55, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
You're done here? Good. You're just embarrassing yourself. Black Kite (talk) 03:05, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
(Reply to Epipelagic): let's see, you ask irrelevant questions above (previous section) for which you can find the answer just as easily as I can, but if I refuse to do the work needed, you just draw the worst possible ABF conclusion from it. Of course, when I actually do some basic reseearch to show that your assumptions were rather wrong, you simply ignore it, and move on to another section where you continue to sprout more divisive nonsense. Both Sandstein and I have more edits, and more articles created, than e.g. you have. That doesn't make us better or worse, but it shows how ridiculous your assertions are about "Sandstein and Fram, and the rest of that component of the Wikipedia community who are here, not so much to build content, but more to ensure that "justice" and retribution are dealt out to those who are here to build content". I am here to build content, just like you are, and Sandstein, and Rich Farmbrough, and most others (there are one or two editors in this discussion who are no longer here to build any content, but since they oppose the block, I don't think you are interested in berating them). Feel free to criticize the block or the restrictions as much as you like, but after two badly failed attempts, let's hope that third time will be a charm and you will find something actually correct to base your arguments on. Fram (talk) 08:34, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
I'm sorry you had to go trolling through everything looking for problems, Fram. When I asked that question I thought you would have the details at your fingertips. I was trying to clarify whether the level of problematic edits by RF was actually anything out of the ordinary. I did ask if you "would mind", and was not trying to put you on the spot. You could simply have replied that you didn't have those details to hand, but instead you responded in a dismissive way. That resulted in my suggestion that the proportion of problems was small, a reply which seems to have upset you. You then changed your mind and provided four sample edits. Three contained minor errors. The fourth however was problematic. You say it was OR, and since I cannot access the article I cannot assess that. Then Bearian semi-protected the article with the reason "Addition of unsourced or poorly sourced content: Recent need to rv WP:OR, important article". Why on earth would Bearian do that? It didn't even seem an "important article". Was it just because RF was involved? That was the point where I backed out, and the reason I didn't reply.
I'm not sure why you made those comments about edit counts. If you build content then you must know that edit counts by themselves establish precisely nothing about content contributions. Content contributions could perhaps be established by examining say the principal 20 or 40 articles an editor has written. If you and Sandstein and I are all here to build content in the same way, then we would be seeing eye to eye, wouldn't we. --Epipelagic (talk) 13:29, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
"trolling"? Curious choice of words there. Why would I have those details at my fingertips? I normally don't look at all edits, it's depressing enough to look at a few. You still jumped to a conclusion that wasn't warranted by anything in this discussion but seemed to be based on some preconceived notion you had. Anyway, while two of the four examples are indeed minor, I don't consider changing "prorector" to "proctor" so minor, since it changes the meaning for no good reason at all.
Coming to the fourth problem; what are you actually trying to say? "I cannot access the article"? Have you even tried? It is protected from "editing", not from viewing, you only had to click on the diff I conveniently provided([7]). Why Bearian said or did anything is his choice, and you would need to ask him for an explanation.
Finally; you started about content builders vs. non-content builders, rather out of the blue and without any evidence. I at least provided the most basic and crude evidence (article creations) to indicate that you were wrong. Feel free to provide better measures to decide who is and who isn't a content builder here. I don't have those measures handy, but since you were rather categorical, I presume you have evidence that I (or Sandstein) are not content builders? Or is the only evidence you have that we are not in agreement in this case? That's a perfectly circular piece of logic you are applying there; "I'm a content builder and I'm right. You are wrong, so it must be because you are not a content builder." "Why do you believe i'm not a content builder?" "Because you don't agree with me." So again, do you have any substantial and substantiated arguments to back up your position? Fram (talk) 13:58, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
I was thinking of trolling (fishing). By "I cannot access the article" I meant I cannot access the source that RF provided. Because the source cannot be accessed, I don't see how you determined he was engaged in OR. You say article creations are the "most basic" evidence of content building. That is worrisome coming from an admin. No content builder would ever think that. Some of the most prolific content builders largely develop or rewrite existing articles, particularly these days. It would be easy to generate 100 stubs a day, and it would mean next to nothing. I'm not sure what you are arguing in the tail end of your comment - it doesn't make sense to me. --Epipelagic (talk) 14:41, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
Trolling (fishing)? Right... As for the source, I'll guess I'll do the work again: [8]. Further: ah, the out-of-context quotes are cheap today! I did not just say that they are the "most basic", I said "the most basic and crude evidence", which is hardly claiming that it is the best or most significant evidence... So, let's see, I have given some examples of errors, which you could have found as well instead of jumping to unwarranted conclusions; I have provided the source, something which you could have done as well; I have given some indication why your argument was wrong, based on things you could have researched before making judgments as well; in return, you have what? Complained? Misrepresented my statements? Continued your claim that I am not a content builder? Yes, all that, but you haven't done any legwork, presented any evidence, ... Basically, you have wasted my time for no good reason at all. Fram (talk) 15:26, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Try trawling then, as in trawling through data. It's not difficult.
  • You say RF is guilty of OR for claiming that the widely used phrase "who did what to whom, and when" was relevant to the article. That was a minor content issue, which could have been politely debated on the talk page. It needed discussing, but instead you treated him as a vandal with your revert and naked charge of OR. Why Bearean then backed you up and blocked the article is beyond comprehension, and suggests a knee jerk persecution of RF.
  • From the evidence you have provided, the percentage of really problematic edits by RF during that period was indeed "infinitesimally small", zero to be precise.
  • Sorry Fram. Generating stubs is not evidence per se of content building. It can be just a simple mechanical matter that can be done by bots. It would be easy to manufacture hundreds of stubs over the next few days. What would that prove?
  • Where did I say you were not a content builder? I said you were were here, "not so much to build content, but more to ensure that 'justice' and retribution are dealt out to those who are here to build content". Do you disagree with that? Where does that imply that you might not also be here to build content?
  • Since you are making such a big deal over how you are a credible content builder, it is now up to you to substantiate your claim.
  • On the general issue of content editors – editors who are not content builders tend to minimise what is involved. I don't think people should be able to claim they are content builders without providing supporting evidence. It's rather like Essjay claiming all those unsubstantiated qualifications. Being a content builder is not, and should not be a minor matter, a matter of little more than reverts and stubs. Bone fide content builders are in fact quite thin on the ground on Wikipedia, and users should not be able to claim they are content builders without providing evidence if challenged. The same applies to an editor who claims to be a professor or to be an administrator. I'd expect a user who claims they are a credible content builder to provide, preferably accessible from their user page, at least half a dozen examples of substantial articles for which they are the principal content author. Other users can then easily assess the validity of their claim. Put that on one of your user pages, Fran, so it will be easy for readers to judge to what extent you actually are a content builder.
  • For myself, I claim to be an aspiring or apprentice content builder. I have long indicated that on one of my user pages, and I'll happily indicate 20 (or 50 or 120) substantial articles as supporting evidence, some of which can be found here.
I am not wasting your time. You are managing to do that without my help. --Epipelagic (talk) 00:38, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
Epipelagic, I'm done with you and your dirty tactics. I don't know whether you are merely incompetent or truly dishonest, but either way, if this is how you normally behave on Wikipedia, you have no business here. Please actually read the Five W's edit Rich Farmbrough made; he was not "claiming that the widely used phrase "who did what to whom, and when" was relevant to the article", he was claiming that one particular source at one particular time coined the phrase. That is a very specific claim, with no supporting evidence, so it was pure WP:OR. You are misrepresenting what he said only to strengthen your case and to support your conclusions (you need shifting goalposts for this as well, changing from "what percentage of edits made by Rich Farmbrough since he came off his last block contain errors?" and "I take from your reluctance to disclose the percentage that it is infinitesimally small." to now "the percentage of really problematic edits", which is a completely different claim of course, and your conclusion that that percentage is zero is only supportable if you ignore or twist beyond recognition all the facts; but that was probably to be expected as par for the course). As to what you expect; bugger off. I have provided you with what you wanted over and over again, you haven't presented anything in return, apart from evidence that you are a content builder, which was never disputed and not very interesting. Perhaps you should stick to it, and leave discussions to those of us that are willing and able to play fair. Fram (talk) 10:54, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
  • This diatribe by a notorious hardline blocking admin is one of the reasons why Wikipedia is unravelling. Bullying behaviour like this from an admin is tolerated by the admin community providing it is directed towards content builders. In the reverse situation the content builder would be blocked indefinitely with a demand that he must crawl in a humiliated manner before the blocking admininstrator if he wants to return to Wikipedia. This asymmetric power to bully, block and humiliate content builders, treating them as though they were vandals, is given to users with little experience in building content, as well as users who are temperamentally unsuited to wield such power. This is what sits at the heart of the current dysfunction and growing climate of fear on Wikipedia. --Epipelagic (talk) 19:35, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
This matter continues in the following thread --Epipelagic (talk) 08:15, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
You say: "I have more edits, and more articles created, than e.g. you have... I am here to build content, just like you are". Sorry Fram, but that is not "just like" any content builder. That is not how it is in the slightest. The rapid-fire minor general maintenance and semi-automated edits you often make and your production line of stubs made from public domain text does not make you anything like a content builder. That you could possibly think that highlights the confusion some editors who are not content builders have about building content. Now it's time for you to "play fair". As discussed above, can you offer for scrutiny just six substantial articles, say over 30 or 40K and not just lists, for which you are the primary content builder? Perhaps you had trouble finding six articles, otherwise why would you have got so angry? So how about two? Even one would be a start, and would establish a little credibility. But the inference is clear if you offer nothing. --Epipelagic (talk) 07:35, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

IN response to several of the comments above:

  • @ Prioryman, It does not. As I have mentioned else where the only thing that this block accomplishes is to show to the community that the policies need to be changed, we need to stop letting bullies and miscreants control the project because too few of us have the stomach for confrontation and don't want to call them out when they do something we don't agree with. I sacrificed my morale character for years and didn't get involved and I regret that now because I could have helped to nip some of this in the butt long ago before it rooted. It also does a pretty effective job of striking fear into editors who might want to start a bot or do a lot of edits using automation.
  • @ Gwickwire, we few editors cannot destroy Arbcom's creditibility but cases like this they do that job pretty well themselves. The community see's it, most don't act on it but having 22, 000 pages on my watchlist, several hundred of which are admins, arb members and veteran users, allows me to see a wide array of discussions referring to it. Don't be fooled into thinking that because there are only a few actively commenting that the rest don't care. Many of them prefer to keep their heads down partly out of fear and partly because they want to keep their editing enjoyable and avoid drama.
  • @ Fram, you Harass Rich for years incesently, continue to pursue a vendetta to have him banned form the project, refuse to step away from a topic you are clearly too involved in and actually have the gall to accuse another user of assuming bad faith? I would say that perhaps now is a good time for some self refelction but I am familiar enough with your activities to know better. Also, on the topic of being a content editor, yes you have created a lot of articles but as I mentioned before I hardly call cutting and pasting information from another dicionary with no other changes but adding some wikiformatting and a couple of categories as a strong background in article building. Yes it has been confirmed its not Copyright violation but its still plagiarism and still damn lousy writing. I also find it rather ironic that whenever someone disagrees with you, you present a case of I am right you are wrong mentality. And you have the gall to accuse other editors of ABF! Really?KumiokoCleanStart (talk) 14:53, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
    • I have created and expanded a lot of other articles as well, and the fact that you still consider it plagiarism is one of many good reasons why it is a good thing that you never passed an RfA (your continued incorrect interpretation of WP:INVOLVED is another example of this). Wrt disagreements: what I try to do, contrary to many others in this discussion, is "I am right and you are wrong and here is the evidence". But I'll gladly make an exception for you, and not provide any other articles I created or improved. That way, you can just continue believing whatever it is you want to believe. Fram (talk) 15:39, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
Really, not plagiarism? So what is it called when you copy and paste stuff from one source to the other? I don't know maybe they don't have a law for it in your couontry. That's possible, I don't know how the laws work where you live, but here in the US where I live we call that plagiarism and its generally frowned upon. I also don't think my interpretation of involved is a problem. My problem is that you don't seem to recognize that what you are doing, constantly following other users around and frequently provoking them, isn't; and isn't harassment either. That is truly troubling. Also, its true I may never get access to the tools but I don't think you should have them either. You have on repeated occassions shown that you lack the temperment, maturity or technical competance to use them or have them. That editors like you are able to get the tools and continually harass users you don't like and violate policy in a variety of ways while others are not allowed to have them because they can't be "trusted" shows how bad the RFA process needs to be fixed. The one thing I am indeed thankful for is that you rarely use them (other than to be able to see deleted content that you can use in Arbcom cases that is)! KumiokoCleanStart (talk) 20:40, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
To answer your question, cutting and pasting from one source to another is called "quoting". You've probably done it yourself when answering email. Plagiarism is the use of someone else's work without appropriate acknowledgement, which you have ignored in your definition. In the articles you tried to AfD, Fram included a template which acknowledged that the text in the article came from a public-domain source, and named what the source was. Therefore, he did not plagiarize, because he clearly showed where the text came from, and that he did not write it himself. Sarek and Moonriddengirl already explained this at the time, but I am explaining it again: Fram did not plagiarize.
You may not understand or accept the usual definition of plagiarism. That does not mean you can keep calling Fram a plagiarist, any more than a vegetarian could call the police every time her neighbor had a barbecue because "meat is murder". If you continue to follow him around accusing him of plagiarism, that would probably be "frowned upon" and constitute "harassment" by you, as you explained above. If you want to argue for social change or debate Fram's suitability to be an admin, fine, but be truthful when doing so: it's degrading to you if you don't, and it will make people less likely to listen to your calls for change. Choess (talk) 22:01, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
A quote is exactly that, a quote, preferably with a reference associated. Not an entire article copied from the source with scant sources. So let's take a look at an article he just created, Juan Galván Jiménez. A nearly identical copy from Bryan's Dictionary of Painters and Engravers page 212 here. Now I admit this is not a copywritten work and falls under open source material but it still seems like this is plagiarism! But I guess I don't really know what plagiarism is if its not copying info directly. At the very least its extremely poor writing. Now I have used a lot of material from government sources and other open source material but one thing I do not believe I have intentionally done is copy someone else's work in this manner. Yes he left a basic link but Bryans is a massive multi volume compendium so it would have been extremely beneficial to leave at least a page number where the source can be found. People may not like what I have to say, they might even think I am an asshole, but this my friend, is plagiarism! With that said, plagiarism isn't a crime, even with most copywritten works, but its journalistic, literary immoral and reflects a breech of trust towards the community by the individual. You may not agree, and that's fine, but it is what it is.
But this isn't about me and its not about Fram directly. This is about Rich F, who was blocked for a year for the accusation from Fram that he was using automation (loosely defined including copy paste). That is what this is about. There was little proof, just assumptions. Which it seems was enough to invoke a one year block. So, if there is a problem here its not me.KumiokoCleanStart (talk) 00:46, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
If you copy from one author, it’s plagiarism. If you copy from two, it’s research :) Count Iblis (talk) 00:51, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
Kumioko, I'm not sure how much more clear I can make this without doing annoying things with fonts. Plagiarism is not "copying info directly", it's "copying info directly" without proper acknowledgement. I do not disagree with your moral judgments on plagiarism, but you are the only one who thinks that what has been done here is plagiarism. How you feel or what it "seems" like does not change the definition. The template Fram added to acknowledge the source of the article refers to an encyclopedia: it tells you what article it came from, because that's how you look things up in encyclopedias, not by page numbers. (BTW, Template:EB1911 is almost a decade old, so people have been doing exactly what Fram has been doing for that entire time. This is not a new practice or something only he has been doing.) I realize you are eager, emotionally, to give Fram a taste of his own medicine, so to speak; but in order to do that, you first have to have a good grasp of the policy, which doesn't seem to be the case here. If you want to argue that these aren't evidence of content creation on Fram's part, fine (I think even he would agree with you), but it's still not plagiarism.
Re. Rich, if that sort of hypervigilant scrutiny and assumptions of automation were applied to another editor, yes, it would be over the top and unfair. The problem is that Rich was caught having downloaded and used an automation tool two weeks after being told he couldn't make automated edits. Rich got stuck with very broad and draconian restrictions (indeed, I think ArbCom would have been nicer if they'd banned him outright) because it was clear that that was the only way to keep him from continuing to use automation. Yeah, it's a shame he got blocked over something so trivial, but if he'd been more responsive and cooperative originally, he wouldn't have would up in a situation where tiny things like that could put him in violation of his restrictions. Choess (talk) 02:48, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
Ok fine I'm not an expert on plagiarism. I think its pretty funny that the Copyright bots and the folks at CCI kept hitting on the Medal of Honor recipient articles I was creating as plagiarism when it was cited direct quotes (for the citations) from freely distributable government sources. But somehow this isn't. Anyway. Rich was very responsive originally. It was only after being repeatedly hounded and harassed by Fram and CBM that he stopped responding to them and just ignored their comments. It started to become one of those "if you give a mouse a cookie he'll ask you for a glass of milk" situations. Everytime he catered to one of their complaints it only encouraged them to make more of them more often. Anyone would have gotten fed up under those conditions. Kumioko (talk) 03:07, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
I hope you complained to the bot owners. :) I'm not necessarily an expert on plagiarism, either; Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing kinda took me by surprise a few years ago. Not that I would have done it, but no one ever explicitly said it either...sometimes you just have to go, "OK, policy is what it is" and walk away. So don't put on a dunce cap or anything.
I don't really know enough about the situation leading up to the ArbCom case to make an intelligent comment. As someone who edits manually, it can be kinda scary to have a bot blasting through your watchlist. If it made 5000 tiny fixes and put 50 hard-to-find errors into my articles, it's hard to see that as an improvement. And once the bot goes away, if you know it's been making errors, you as an editor feel under pressure to try to find them and fix them before they screw up the readers...and the bot is running much faster than you can. Bottom line, if a bot creates 50 errors, that's still 50 errors that have to be fixed by people who don't run bots, even if it had a very high rate of accuracy. Yes, there is a lot of pressure on bot operators, but dealing with that is part of the job. Choess (talk) 04:18, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
The most important issue here is whether or not Rich deserved the block. I really can't say he did and I really can't say he didn't. Is this likely to be overturned? I don't thinks so. Should there be a route for uninvolved editors to apeal this decision? Perhaps, but I do doubt that will happen soon either. Bottum line....see you in a year Rich.--Amadscientist (talk) 15:02, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
But from Wikipedia's perspective the block isn't a good solution. So, if we forget what individual editors want, if we just focus on maintaining and improving Wikipedia, then banning Rich is like amputating your leg just because you have chronic knee pain. Count Iblis (talk) 01:00, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
Amadscientist asks a good question. I looked for somewhere to challenge the block as a rather obvious over-reaction, and couldn't find it. On the other hand, there is little doubt that Rich is being a dick. He has been repeatedly asked to stop doing certain things, which routinely fuck up actual content, and he refuses to stop. We have been here before (e.g. Betacommand). I wish Rich would simply abide by consensus and rise above it by continuing to do good work. Experience indicates this is a forlorn hope. Guy (Help!) 01:36, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
And...lets think of the flip of this. If he wasn't blocked, how many editors would be upset that he was protected just be cause he is so prolific? Not like we haven't had that discussion on this very page before.--Amadscientist (talk) 01:39, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
cf. the Doncram arb case. If someone had been willing to say to him a few years back, "Look, you're making a lot of borderline-acceptable edits and you're blowing off criticism about them. Send your articles through AFC until things have improved.", it would have prevented a lot of bad behavior on the part of all parties to the case and saved a lot of wasted time and effort bickering. Choess (talk) 02:54, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
Precisely. I looked to see what I might be able to do to help get Rich unblocked, as I like him. The answer is - nothing, really. He chose to go down the road of ignoring valid criticism. That never ends well. Guy (Help!) 15:29, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Solution to automation errors is automated verification: This whole debate about "automated edits" has occurred at an ironic time, because the solution is "automated verification" which is now highly possible with Lua script. The main reason I would dred making large changes is because the system was so S-L-O-W that I could not wait to verify the edits. Now, as of 15 hours ago, the transition of Template:Cite_web to use Lua, has made the edit-preview, and edit-save (proofread the contents), over 3x faster for many large (and popular) articles (as 7-8 seconds rather than 20-35). Part of automated verification is to reformat the text to be viewed in the same hour, and it was getting unbearable because large articles were so S-L-O-W to reformat, it had become "automated frustration" not verification, and then the frustration-based mistakes would add garbage into the article, causing edit-preview shock, then wait and redo, then timeout ("wp:Wikimedia Foundation error"), and so people would become afraid of verifying their changes, just make some good-faith effort, click "Save page" and hope it worked after the long delay and timeout error. All that has changed, now, and people can finally edit-preview and see their changes within seconds, without total fear of timeout errors (any article averaging 21 seconds could drag into 60-second timeout). Also, we can create better automated tools, with automated verification, to look for obvious typos (such as 8 suspicious apostrophes), and that is another way to make "automated editing" less error-prone. For one specific problem above, lowercase French text, I had created the tool {fixcaps}, because retyping lowercase letters can be so tedious, numbing, and fall-asleep-typing boring. Hence, now:
  • Result: liste définitive des députés élus à l’issue des deux tours
  • Result: Liste Définitive des Députés Élus à L’issue des Deux Tours
In general, see the various other examples in Template:Fixcaps. Another possibility might be to offer a Lua-based spellcheck tool for a short section of text, to compare against common words, where a Lua module could rapidly check the length and warn, "Text section too long to check all words". The concept could work like this: a quick spellcheck cannot actually validate all words, but it would rapidly skip the common words to list only unusual words, and such feedback, to a distracted editor, might focus their attention to look among the unusual words to spot true spelling errors in the selected section of text. This is an example, where "automated" does not mean "automatic" but merely "assisted" where the automation is limited to realistic levels, not to consume the servers with a zillion calculations. We already have quick {spellnum} to pronounce a number with perhaps too many zeroes to easily count: {{spellnum|40000000000000}} states "forty trillion" as another tool, to verify long numbers for dyslexic editors. Anyway, we need to provide better tools to assist editors who think automated tools are the future of improving Wikipedia, because at the base level, Wikipedia uses computer-based, automated word processing. So, the long-term solution is: more automation, not less. We need to work with our highly intelligent editors, to provide better tools to assist them. -Wikid77 (talk) 16:46/01:01, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
...can't wait to see JW's opinion on this... Face-wink.svg Basket Feudalist 19:21, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
I doubt he will comment on this one. He's probably enjoying his Easter weekend and by tomorrow this thread will most likely be archived. With that said its very possible he already saw it and just decided to pass on leaving a comment about this problem. I problem all too common on here from him and a lot of the community in general. Kumioko (talk) 21:54, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
Why would you want to write a number in a tricky form, such that you need a computer tool to check it? Is it supposed that the reader go and use the same tool? Automation - assisted automation as you say - is excellent, I agree, but this is a poor example. Instead of writing "40000000000000" and use a tool to check correctness, you should use probably use "40,000,000,000,000", or "40x1012", or spell it out (though trillion would still need clarification, to me that is "40 billion"...). Automation must not help "automation operators" against "keyboard/manual editor" even less against "readers" - Nabla (talk) 11:01, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Has a witchhunt happened?

Fram has made angry accusations in the section above of dirty tactics, incompetence, true dishonesty, inability to to be fair, unfitness to be here, and so on. This raises the question as to why Fram is resorting to gross personal attacks rather than responding to the issues. It is damaging the health and long term prospects of Wikipedia if admins are allowed to avoid accountability in this way. These problems exist because the only people on Wikipedia who currently address such behaviours are the admins themselves.

Fram claims above that RF was guilty of "really problematic" OR for asserting that the widely used phrase "who did what to whom, and when" had "passed into common usage" during the 1940s.[9] He rudely reverted RF as though he were a vandal, crudely accusing him of OR in the edit summary. The edit was mildly problematic, not inaccurate, but not really appropriately sourced or formatted. It was hardly a "really problematic" edit, as Fram claims, and certainly didn't warrant treating RF as though he was a vandal. It was just a run of the mill content issue, and Fram could have handled the matter politely and discussed it on the talk page, or edited the entry and used a better source. The phrase indisputably "passed into common usage" and was obviously relevant to the article. It also is a phrase that came into common use after the second world war. That is easy to verify informally. I found only two instances on the web where it was used prior to the second world war. RF added nothing to the article that was really misleading or inappropriate, but it was not well sourced and needed further work.

Instead Fram treated him as a vandal, with a revert and a naked charge of OR. Another admin, Bearian, then blocked the article so RF couldn't edit it, using the edit summary, "Addition of unsourced or poorly sourced content: Recent need to rv WP:OR".[10] Why? The protection occurred 6 hours after the event. There was no sign of edit warring. Blocking an article so a content editor can't edit is another way admins demonstrate unilateral power over content editors, another way to disempower and humiliate. It should be used with care if it is going to be used against a skilled and long term editor. How could its use here possibly be regarded as appropriate?

Another issue concerns the timing of these incidents. Why would Bearian look at this particular article at this particular point in time? He had never edited the article before. Was he following RF's edits? Neither had Fram edited the article before. Was it just miraculous coincidence that Fram randomly stumbled upon this article, one out of four million, just three days after RF edited it? Or was Fram stalking RF's edits? In the above thread, KumiokoCleanStart says that Fram has hounded RF over the last two years. If RF was in fact systematically persecuted by Fram, and possibly others, then the validity of his current one year block needs revisiting.

RF had in the past messed things up with automated edits and then refused to clean up after himself. That was a serious matter, not cleaning up, and should have been sanctioned. It was sanctioned. If since coming off that block, RF has not made any really problematic edits, and from the evidence supplied by Fram that seems to be the case, then has a witchhunt happened? --Epipelagic (talk) 08:06, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

  • Communications between them became combative (not collaborative): Rather than treating edit-restrictions as a "mutual agreement" of acceptable levels, the restrictions had become too harsh. The severe limit of "absolutely no search-and-replace" rather than "20 repetitions at most" or such, had fostered a bad attitude. Similarly, when an issue is considered "OR" then more study should have been done, such as a talk-page thread questioning the history of phrase "who did what to whom, and when" in article "Five Ws". Naturally, the many experienced content editors would have searched related sources, rather than revert a claim sourced to an offline magazine. For example, the Google Ngram Viewer confirms the general concept of the phrase (as 5-word portions) gaining popular use in the 1940s, where the phrase, "who did what to whom" emerged during the 1940s (see: ngram "who did what to whom") and "what to whom and when" skyrocketed in late 1940s (see: ngram "what to whom and when"). Based on those ngrams, then the claim of the phrase becoming popular in the 1940s does not seem like wp:OR but rather correct, and that could have been discussed in Talk:Five_Ws. When admins are no longer acting in a spirit of collaboration, then the results become a predictable banning and loss of the hounded editor who seems to be right about phrases used in the 1940s, and other issues. -Wikid77 (talk) 10:01, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
Yep I agree with you both. The harassment behind this case was serious but was never taken seriously by those who knew better. IMO, because they got tired of hearing about it more than problems by the editor. But that doesn't change the facts. Whatever Rich did or didn't do, the problems were compounded by the unending discussions and threats by Fram and to a lesser extent a couple of other users. The bigger problem to me is that Fram seems to either genuinely not understand what he is doing wrong, doesn't care he's doing it or is pretending we are too stupid to not see it. Kumioko (talk) 16:30, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
Wikipedia is changing some people to the worst, especially the ones who get the power. I have been noticing such changes on many occasions, but especially striking were changes to one user I believed was my friend. I used to respect him, I used to like his sense of humor, I used to enjoy our email conversations. He even felt safe to share with me his private information. Then once I was falsely accused here on Wikipedia, and that user did nothing to stop my accuser. At first I thought he did not see the accusation, but then he told me that he did. After that I stopped emailing to him, but it is not the end of story. Some time ago that user became an admin.A few weeks ago he told me: "You were treated poorly", yet instead of helping me, he got after me with the whole strength of his newly obtained administrative power, and even discussed me with the very accuser. It is a sad story, and even sadder that this story is typical for Wikipedia. (talk) 01:57, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

As to my motives

I read Five Ws, and long ago placed it on my watch list, as it is an extremely basic and foundational article for the CJ project and journalism; for example, I rated it "as High-importance on the project's importance" scale on Talk:Five_Ws. I decided to edit it at that specific time, because I wanted a 'clean' version for my students to read. I use this article for several courses, in which I discuss interviewing, especially Civil litigation and Criminal courts. Before I assign my students to read any article on Wikipedia, I always check to make sure there is no vandalism, and therefore I semi-protected it when I found recent IP vandalism. I did not claim that Fram or RF (or any other registered User) did anything wrong; to the contrary, it was past IP vandalism that I wanted to protect - hence the semi- not full protection. I take no stance on whose edit is correct, either Fram or RF. I didn't notice anything wrong with what either did. Also, I don't want my students to edit the article that I've assigned. My philosophy is that semi-protection does no real harm to the project, and can only remove temptations. I hope that cleared up any confusion as to my motives. Bearian (talk) 14:19, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

P.S. As has been pointed out at least twice above, "subsequently semi-protected by Bearian," (emphasis added). If I wanted to block a User, I would have fully-protected the article, but that would (a) make no sense, (b) not be my SOP, and (c) probably be an abuse of my sysop privileges. My motive was only to forestall yet more IP vandalism. By the way, I don't know when I watchlisted The 5 Ws, but it had to have been at c. 2011, possibly Jimbo or a Checkuser can check that out and back me up. In any case, I thought both Fram and RF are autoconfirmed users, so my motive could not have been to block either or both of them. I "have no horse in this race". I am very, truly sorry that my ambiguous edit summary has caused upset and confusion. Bearian (talk) 14:35, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

You missed this section blanking vandalism from 2006, still lost from the article today. Uncle G (talk) 11:06, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Oh, now I'm getting blamed for not reverting vandlaism from exactly 18 months to the day before I was elected a sysop. April Fool's day was last week. Bearian (talk) 22:50, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

17 Norwegians playing a role at a WW2 massacre of 200 Yugoslavs/ a UN military commander

Does this text need peer review? Hagrup Haukland is a Norwegian who was commander of 6000 Norsk oberst får kritikk etter folkemord United Nations soldiers (including the 400 UN soldiers in Srebrenica who did not intervene in the Srebrenica massacre that they witnessed).

Under his command at UNIFIL he aided two escapees from the Khiam prison in Lebanon. [11] The escapees were aided by dressing them in Norwegian military uniforms and transporting them from the area where they were first apprehended by Norwegian UN soldiers. Haukland aided the prisoners because he had reason to believe that torture took place at the prison. The incident has been reported by Israeli and Norwegian media.

When the massacre started he was on vacation. Confusion within his staff has been attributed in part to his being slow in returning to his place of work, after the massacre started.

In another article (a massacre of near 200 Yugoslavs) I have added cited text that has previously been removed by a person who is an administrator on the Norwegian site: "Seventeen Norwegian guards were present and played a role". Does this reinserted text need a peer review? --Whatthatspells (talk) 11:16, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes, of course. Text relating to massacres which might seem to assign responsibility to someone should be treated with extreme caution.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 23:32, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

On WP:BLPN#Meryl_Davis

I understand that you believe that statement is untrue due to your close relationship with the subject of the article, now as I already said, the statement itself is cited, and verified which means as far as wikipedia is concerned it is true

Quote without comment. Ken Arromdee (talk) 18:07, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

thank you for correcting my "understanding" or better said how I phrased the matter, I have clarified my position and requested further comment if you would care to give me your insight into the matter.Coffeepusher (talk) 00:41, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
Thank you for your reply, I will take that to heart.Coffeepusher (talk) 22:40, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Editors in the news Just thought I would post this here in case some of you have concerns or are curiuos.--Canoe1967 (talk) 16:58, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Wow, are you the only user to have a talk page commented on 50 times in one day? -- (talk) 23:40, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

not surprised. i see so many comments on this talk page..... it's almost a sort of discussion board for wikipedia as a whole.... -- Aunva6talk - contribs 01:06, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Individual dresses

Hi Jimmy. Back in April 2011 you said this after the wedding dress of Kate Middleton was put up for deletion. The most notable dresses at the Oscars in my opinion seem to be very notable in the subject of fashion which is very poorly covered on here because of the male geek bias as you said. We can have a crappy Linux stub article but not accept Yellow Valentino dress of Cate Blanchett or Silver Giorgio Armani dress of Cate Blanchett. Articles are at AFD, I've expanded one, pretty sure the other can be expanded.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 23:55, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

  • Just add some "fabric formulae" to each fashion article: If, in the 2nd second sentence of each article, there were some variables defined: "Let x be in the unified set of yellow fabrics..." then in the next paragraph, introduce the related eigenvector:
If we multiply any fabric's square matrix with rows and columns by such a vector , the result will be another vector , also with rows and one column. That is, the fabric can be tailored as:
is mapped to
where, for each index ,
In tailoring the garments, if is not all zeros, the vectors and will not be parallel, and therefore, one sleeve of the dress was longer than the other sleeve.
That extra wording should keep the fashion articles from being deleted. Sorry, I couldn't resist the joke. -Wikid77 (talk) 07:49, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Report by Netherlands Institue for War Documentation concerning the Srebrenica massacre

Peer review for "Srebrenica: a ‘safe’ area is a 2002 report by the Netherlands Institute for War Documentation concerning the Srebrenica Massacre. It resulted in the resignation of the Second cabinet of Wim Kok, on 16 April 2002—six days after the release of the report"? --Whatthatspells (talk) 09:09, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

The text has already been nominated for speedy deletion. Now the text has one citation by Aftenposten, referring to the report. --Whatthatspells (talk) 09:31, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

A huge pie for you!

A very beautiful Nectarine Pie.jpg with an imaginary wikipedia symbol on it lol MopSeeker (talk) 22:17, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

You've got mail!

Hello, Jimbo Wales. Please check your email; you've got mail!
Message added 01:51, 12 April 2013 (UTC). 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.

Pratyya (Hello!) 01:51, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Chechen Wikipedia 2

Once again, I'm writing you about situation in Chechen Wikipedia. Here is the detailed report about the situation in this section. I'm allready write to Kat Walsh, she copying my message to Philippe. But still I have no reaction - neither from Stewards, nor from Philippe. I'm asking your reaction since you the member of Board of Trustees, not because of you are the founder of Wikipedia.--Soul Train (talk) 07:04, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Two articles of English Wikipedia is forbidden (blacklisted) by Roskomnadzor

Hello. Please draw your attention to the situation with Internet censorship in Russia. Several days ago it became known that at least one Russian WP page was blacklisted, but the situation worsened when official documents received by Wikimedia RU showed that Suicide methods and Vaporizer (drug) were censored too. I think that the situation need your intervention. Thank you in advance, Ain92 (talk) 19:37, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Just out of curiosity, what intervention are you suggesting? According to Google translation of that link above, "We would like to remind that this list can become the reason for preventing access to Wikipedias in Russian, English, and potentially - in other languages, given that the current mechanisms of page blocking on the side of the content provider only make it possible to block the access to the whole site. Even though we shall suggest the editing communities to modify the articles, the risk of keeping the list of suicide methods in the article dedicated to this encycloped ic subject is sufficiently high." Logically, it seems like there are three possibilities here:
  • a) Wikipedia slavishly kowtows to whatever the Russia government wants taken out, of which this is likely only a small portion as their freedom of press continues to fade away. (Imagine how that will play when Kazakhstan makes the same demand...)
  • b) Wikipedia stays blocked in Russia forever. A shame, because Wikipedia could be a democratic force, but on the other hand, in a future Cold or other War, we might be glad if the Russians have less background in the sciences.
  • c) The Russian ISPs figure out a way to block only the pages they were told to block after all. At which point nothing has been lost but what we would have given up trying to implement #1 anyway, and for that, there are thumb drives.
So under what scenario does it make sense for Wikipedia to do anything to accommodate the Russian demands? (On the other side, it may not be necessary to stage a site blackout...) Wnt (talk) 21:03, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
For me, being blocked is always preferable to collaborating with censors. It's important to understand that the fear of site-wide blocking is based in concerns that some (smaller, presumably) ISPs may lack sufficient technical resources to block individual pages, forcing them to block the entire site to comply with the law. Believe me, if those ISPs block the entire site, while other ISPs only block specific pages, the ones which block all of Wikipedia will lose customers very very quickly. We are not weak, we are very powerful. Catering to the demands of weak and cowardly politicians - the kind who fear the spread of knowledge - is not the Wikipedia way.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 21:18, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
and people find ways around blocks pretty easily anyways... -- Aunva6talk - contribs 00:05, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
Thank you! n:ru:Джимми Уэйлс: Подчиняться давлению слабых и трусливых политиков — это не путь Википедии. --sasha (krassotkin) 08:15, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
The ISP concerns are not very correct. There are many talks in press that per-page blocking (they say, "Deep Packet Inspection") is impossible and only per-site blocking is used. And blocked sites (there are many so far) show major backbone ISP logos such as Rostelecom and Beeline even if you use some local sub-providers. So, provider switching probably won't work. --ssr (talk) 18:59, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
well, encryption is supposed to defeat deep packet inspection. siply putting https in. not sure if it actually works, but it goes to show, there's almost always some way to bypass blocks. -- Aunva6talk - contribs 03:08, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
These are reasonable tech-talks, but the real "baseline" dialogue currently sounds like: "GOV: We gonna block this particular page according to law // WMRU: We only can edit the article according to our rules and US laws // GOV: We've seen you edited the page and it looks OK for us". This is slightly different from French gov story, and WMF lawyer was answering them in the most correct way, so tried WMRU. --ssr (talk) 07:07, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
It's certainly tempting to say that we are dealing with "political censorship" in Russia, but I'd like to remark that, frankly speaking, nothing more than information about drug-making and ways of committing suicide is being blocked. We may think of it as a sort of prologue to purely political demands, but at the moment Russia's actions are completely legal. The country has signed the European convention of human rights, which states:


1. Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. this right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers. This article shall not prevent States from requiring the licensing of broadcasting, television or cinema enterprises.

2. The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or the rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary.

-- (talk) 07:33, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

This is Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights, to which Russia signed up in 1998. In practice, Clause 1 offers freedom of expression, while Clause 2 allows the state to move the goalposts wherever it chooses. Article 10 is nowhere near as strong as the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 08:18, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
  • I know. Sure, US Constitution is prior for Wikipedia. I mean to stress the fact that certain persons tend to describe the situation in dark colors, saying that big terrible Russia is imposing illegitimate laws driven by fear and cowardice of its government which is afraid of freedom of speech; such ideas are not exactly correct, and Russia has the right to set such restrictions in terms of international law. Therefore, personally I won't call that "censorship". -- (talk) 09:28, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
It is censorship, plain and simple. It is an illegitimate law and it is driven by fear and cowardice.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 10:35, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Hello, I'm Эйхер. I wanted to let you know that I undid one or more of your recent contributions because it appeared to be promotional. Advertising and using Wikipedia as a "soapbox" are against Wikipedia policy and not permitted. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about Wikipedia. Thank you. Excuse me, sir, but your unwary comments are likely to make a disaster in Russian Wikipedia (not because of possible blacklisting, but beacause they have made many users, usually temperate, to forget about rules and goals of the project and to put themselves into political battles). It isn't especially neutral to call foreign legislation illegitimate, even it is far from be wise indeed. I actually didn't undo yor comment, because I believe it would be impolite on user's personal talkpage. I hope you do it yourself. With kind regard, Эйхер (talk) 17:32, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Russia is banning encyclopedic articles about chemical substances, for heavens sake! How is that not censorship, not illegitimate? Saudi Arabia banning the Wikipedia article on Theory of evolution, China banning the article on Tiananmen Square protests of 1989, Russia banning Wikipedia articles on Amphetamine and Methamphetamine, and France deleting a Wikipedia article about a widely known "secret" military radio station (that is sourced on TV interviews with its commander and publically available information): Is this Wikipedia in the new internet? It's censorship. --Atlasowa (talk) 13:15, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

State censorship is not a welcome thing, obviously. But we also shouldn't wash our hands in terms of maintaining responsible content in sensitive articles. It's nowhere near as bad as I remember when I last looked at it, but I'm still not sure whether Suicide methods is a better article for containing information about what the best drug is for overdosing on and how someone might be able to get hold of a version of it, even though it is not generally available in most countries. I'm also not sure its a good topic for a fork in the first place. Formerip (talk) 12:40, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Our responsible and thoughtful editorial judgment must always come first, yes. We should strive for factual, neutral, high quality information. In the current situation in Russia, entire topics of human knowledge have been declared off limits for discussion. This is a deep human rights violation.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 13:50, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
This is populist and biased statements about human rights in Russia. English-speaking civilization is far from perfect too. New state which change the World and make it a truly free and united will be created by Netizens and will be Russian-speaking. ---Zemant (talk) 02:05, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
Jimbo is correct. There are some who say that it is not "censorship" if censorship is done against illegal material. There are others who say that it is not "censorship" if censorship is applied by a private company as a matter of business strategy. If we believed them all then censorship would be a meaningless word useful only for thinking forbidden thoughts. We should instead use the word according to its plain meaning.
I should explain to those interested why I feel it is important to provide information on these topics, specifically methamphetamine synthesis, which I edited and considerably expanded from January 23-29 of 2012. (encompassed within [12] - but as it happens, the Russian version cited by Roskomnadzor never incorporated any of those changes anyway!) The immediate cause for this editing was that I read an article about how hospital burn wards were being driven out of business by uncompensated expenses from hordes of amateur "meth cooks" who managed to very severely injure themselves with a popular one-pot synthesis for the drug.
My first goal in editing was to make the method by which injuries occur more understandable. Namely, the synthesis involves taking a large amount of lantern fuel, mixing in lithium that reacts strongly with water, and keeping it all in a soda bottle that has to be periodically "burped" to keep it from exploding. The result of any contact with air is that the lithium, which may already be sparking in the lantern fuel, sets it off as it sprays out in all directions. Unfortunately, Wikipedia is quite strict about copyright, or I would have tried to have included some key snippets of the spectacular YouTube videos distributed by police to make this more viscerally understandable.
However, to be clear, this was not the only consideration that crossed my mind. While the information I put in the article was by no means a complete how-to recipe, it provided useful references, though I feel certain that anyone serious would have found them as quickly and easily as I did. It is possible that some readers would see how readily the information was available and read further, and attempt the synthesis, however unwise that might be. That is in some ways an obviously bad thing. But on the other hand -- these syntheses are routinely performed by major crime cartels. They will of course maintain the needed information and practical expertise no matter what the law is. Should I accept that this knowledge is now and forever the property of the criminal syndicates, and encourage a policy that would help them to maintain control of the market? I think not.
While editing the section, I actually felt almost as if I were practicing narcotics enforcement, but in a more effective way than the government. I can't barge into a cartel stash house and seize their product. But if I can reduce the specialness, the commercial value of their secret knowledge by making it more public, if I can punch some holes in the careful control that they and the government work together to maintain over the supply in order to inflate prices and profits, then I can have a similar effect. The difference being that if the government raids a stash house today, the cartels will provide to the customers tomorrow, but if random people reading Wikipedia really do try to produce their own supply, then the cartels never see that money back. And of course if they don't then there is nothing to be worried about morally in the first place. Indeed, I would even argue (though with less confidence) that I believe that the profit motive is what fuels not just the production of these drugs, but their marketing and ultimately their consumption, so that if the flow of profit is damaged by legalization or any lesser means, I think their overall use in the population will decrease. Wnt (talk) 18:52, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
Hey, "Better Living Through Chemistry knowledge" is a major part. Perhaps more could be done to describe the price-drop in some legalization efforts, where the cost of legalized drugs became 20x times less, with less need to steal money to support a medical-addiction habit. That could be contrasted with cases, opposite, where the legalized prices rose due to monopoly tactics. In areas where cigarettes are banned, then the price for a rolled cigarette can be 20x-30x times higher than legalized sales which also allow for medical regulations or repeated health warnings. Every bag could say, "Heavy use of street snow is linked to brain damage similar to Alzheimer's". In the past few years, Wikipedia's coverage of dope-related illnesses has greatly expanded. And more could be written. -Wikid77 (talk) 22:09, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

"we might be glad if the Russians have less background in the sciences." [for lacking access to WP for, presumably, a few years] (by Wnt). Please, more jokes! Do you really think that Russia needs WP to keep science going on? Wow! - Nabla (talk) 23:26, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Well, admittedly, no - just as I don't think that blacklisting Wikipedia will stop Russians from making methamphetamine, or pursuing other less painful methods of suicide. But if there is an effect to be had it is a good effect, across the board. The truth is always true, and never leads astray. Wnt (talk) 02:31, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
In the UK, the Press Complaints Commission Editors' Code of Practice says "When reporting suicide, care should be taken to avoid excessive detail about the method used." 5, ii) The concerns about the Russian Wikipedia articles were based initially on WP:NOTHOWTO issues, but have degenerated into old fashioned censorship and battle lines being drawn over freedom of speech.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 08:22, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Interestingly enough, there's a suggestion in the French press this morning that the French judiciary might order ISPs to block access to the Pierre-sur-Haute military radio station article. [13] No idea if this will actually happen, though - it would seem a bit pointless at this stage. Prioryman (talk) 11:49, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

This is like a sad Inspector Clouseau revival. "I arrest you all in the name of the law!" Tarc (talk) 12:25, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
Good article! Interesting snippet: "This is confidential information that may relate to the French nuclear deterrent! The page was extremely accurate, gave it, for example, rates of resistance of materials." The red cape has been waved. :) (To be honest, I can't believe anyone, even in intelligence, can be this dumb - my gut feeling is that somebody thinks that controlling a nuclear response from a known radio tower is ridiculous and wants to be able to go before whatever France uses for a congressional defense subcommittee and say they've been compromised and they need one of those fancy ELF transmitters or something. But so long as the take-home moral of the story is that censorship is stupid and should never be tried again, I don't care if they get their pet project funded) Wnt (talk) 13:55, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
  • About Russian science: I see we have the article "Education in Russia" which has noted how Russia has the highest level of college-educated citizens. That article has also shown the need for a smart grammar-scan template to help with awkward wording. -Wikid77 16:53, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
Yep. Lack of WP access would be a (very very very) minor dent in Russia's level of education, I guess. Oh, well, that is also a minor issue here :-) On topic, I also dislike censorship. We (Portugal) had it for large part of the 20th century, not the part I recall the most personally, but enough to be part of my "cultural genes". Yet, we, WP, should not forget that freedom of speech is clearly not the only fundamental right, safety is important too, life is more important for sure. I presume we do not have detailed instructions on how to make "creative accounting" or embezzle; we also do not have instructions on how to pick pocket; nor how to use a fire arm to cause harm. Why should we have instructions enough to kill oneself? - Nabla (talk) 21:27, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
We certainly should have as much information about "creative accounting" as possible. If the poor could do it, it would be illegal! Wnt (talk) 15:04, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
That's a point. - Nabla (talk) 21:53, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Don't give the Putin government an inch, they will take a mile, as the English saying goes. Far better to be (partially) blocked by the censorship of the post-Soviet kleptocracy than to let governments dictate content. Carrite (talk) 20:02, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

MediaWiki upgraded to 1.22wmf1

Today, the MediaWiki software was upgraded to 1.22wmf1 (7bb4399), and this includes the quicker Scribunto interface to make Lua script functions start much faster. During the next few days, there might be some minor performance problems in various gadgets, or such, as they are adjusted for the upgraded software. However, the preliminary tests have revealed that the Lua-based wp:CS1 cites are reformatting, today, at over 185 per second, versus only 14 per second for the markup-based cites of last year (185/14 = 13x faster). Compared to the March Lua performance, typical wp:CS1-style citation footnotes now reformat ~50% faster. -Wikid77 (talk) 05:47, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

This is fascinating. Thank you for this update, and as well for all the technical updates you have shared with us here in the past months. I don't always remember to thank you for them, but please know that I really like hearing about this stuff.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 10:22, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Well, in most cases, there wasn't much to discuss... just waiting and waiting for the better technology to be installed, rewriting templates to run faster, waiting for templates to be upgraded, and then getting Lua reconfigured to run smoothly. But now, the future is finally here. We have "re-treaded" Wikipedia's sneakers to reformat most pages as quickly as major computers formally processed a typical customer transaction. And now, we have reached the point where our "templates" not only rapidly reformat the text, but they will begin to read paragraphs and suggest better wording for editors to insert (or auto-correct obvious cases; see: talk of wp:CS1 cites), for numerous special-case problems. Analogous to "connected speech analysis" we can have Lua-based templates which scan for trigger phrases, or even rapidly split a paragraph into separate words and analyze the use of each word, but within the limits of what an editor wants to consider, when editing the text. This technology enters the realm of "measuring" NPOV-neutral text, perhaps by counting superlative or negative words, or counting repeated use of specific source websites, to remind editors to be sure the balance reflects the viewpoints of many major sources about a topic. These smart templates will begin to look at the wording and suggest better alternatives. However, our first priority was just to re-tread the prior technology, to restore the speed of editing back to become a comfortable human-level of interaction, as in the early years of Wikipedia. Finally, a new day has dawned. -Wikid77 (talk) 21:34, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Considering smart template for British-English scan: For years, I have wondered if we could get a text-scan template to check for unusual spellings (such as American English words) in articles noted as "British English". I think a smart Lua text-scan template could rapidly scan sections of an article for perhaps 300 words, for variant spellings, to assist in proofreading of article text. Some words to beware:
  • Beware: color, flavor, harbor, honor, humor, labor, neighbor, rumor
    (Expect: colour, flavour, harbour, honour, humour, labour, neighbour, rumour)
  • Beware: caliber, center, centered, fiber, goiter, liter, luster, manoeuver, meager, miter, niter, ocher, reconnoiter, saber, saltpeter, sepulcher, somber, specter
    (Expect: calibre, centre, centred, fibre, goitre, litre, lustre, manoeuvre, meagre, metre, mitre, nitre, ochre, reconnoitre, sabre, saltpetre, sepulchre, sombre, spectre)
  • Beware: fourths, gray, sulfur, check, checking account, program (except "computer program"), traveled
    (Expect: quarters, grey, sulphur, cheque, cheque account, programme, travelled)
  • Others: licence/license, practice/practise, defence/defense, offence/offense
A list of 300-400 words to beware, where many would be considered very unusual in either British English or else in American English, could be defined fairly easily. There is also the wording of amounts over one hundred, as including the word "and" (such as "two hundred and six") and the use of word "zero" versus "naught". Because the smart-template use would be for suggested wording, there would be more flexibility than with Bot edits which fix obvious errors. After handling British/American variants, then Australian and Indian English could also have smart text-scan templates. -Wikid77 16:53, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
The software makes it easier to enforce these boundaries, but must we? So far as I'm concerned there's only one language called English and all these spellings are correct. Wnt (talk) 20:49, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
Wnt, you might be interested in User:Angr/Unified English Spelling.
Wavelength (talk) 01:37, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
Well, I would tend to think of that as another set of silly rules. English has variation, even in a single country ... why not accept it? Enforcing one monolithic rule isn't satisfying to anyone, whereas if you enforce diversity rules region by region... eventually you'll find yourself writing a special bot to enforce that "California is, like, the most populous state in the U.S." I understand we have the current rules so that people who like to twiddle with these differences find some destination to end up at, but no sense encouraging them. :) Wnt (talk) 02:16, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
Please see paragraph 6 of my message at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Archive 125#Possessive apostrophes at 20:07, 16 August 2011 (UTC).
  • "Different countries differ in regard to right- and left-hand traffic, but neither option is invalidated in itself. Also, people migrating to or visiting countries of different standards can adapt to the different standards. In each country, one option is chosen for consistency because consistency promotes efficiency."
Wavelength (talk) 15:16, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
Mahathir Mohamad said that "there is this thing called national pride which gets in the way".
(The World Trade Review, 1–15 November 2003)
Wavelength (talk) 18:57, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
Paragraph 6....... ;) Really, it's that last comment by A di M I'll stick with. Verbal collisions don't hurt, even if you're uninsured. Wnt (talk) 20:01, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Smart templates like apps each user chooses: The intention, for using a smart template to help proofread text, is not to force all users to require spelling variants of British English, but rather to remind users, who want to use such a template, that the spellings of some words seem questionable. The plan is to have numerous smart templates (as hundreds of "apps"), for various applications related to specific topics, which check the wording or numbers or punctuation style. There have also been requests to have templates diagnose an improperly structured wikitable; however, the vertical-bar pipes "|" interfere with the parameter separators used by templates, so in those cases, a Lua-based function could check a whole page based on passing the page-name, rather than text as the parameters, and the whole page could be analyzed, by the smart Lua app, to report any improper structuring of wikitables, or similar diagnosis of markup. -Wikid77 11:32, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Norwegian User talk:Jimbo

You have a new message on the Norwegian page [14]. --Whatthatspells (talk) 09:57, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Looks like I am banned there.
Blocked by the same guy who was reverted by me [15] today. (This thread's first link explains why the ref tags need to be where I put them. This was done by reverting a previous (uninformed?) edit—by an administrator. The details of the block:
12. apr 2013 kl. 13:29 4ing blokkerte Whatthatspells (diskusjon | bidrag) med en varighet på ubestemt (kontooppretting deaktivert, kan ikke redigere egen diskusjonsside) (Sokkedukke som omgår blokkering: Bruker:Sju hav) --Whatthatspells (talk) 11:55, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
The part of that that matters is (Sokkedukke som omgår blokkering: Bruker:Sju hav), which means "(Sock Puppet that circumvents blocking: User: Sju hav)". Looie496 (talk) 15:27, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Norwegian newspaper might have griped about Seychelles text: The issue seems to involve the business newspaper Finansavisen, and potential concerns about article quality for the Norwegian version of "Seychelles" and perhaps other pages, with comments about semi-literate wording. I tend to think, "Just copy-edit the article, soon, to fix major issues" as otherwise, they get like a "dog with a bone" and this gripe could fester again. I'll see if I can fix it (Norwegian seems like a mix of German and Swedish, but Google Translate has been able to handle somewhat). Anyway, as other editors help to fix the troubled article(s), then this incident will likely fade totally. -Wikid77 17:01, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
    • You are correct that the issue is what you say; semi-literate wording. But please don't make the issue worse by using Google Translate to "fix" the issue. I really hope the irony isn't lost on you of using a hardly-literate tool to fix a semi-literate problem. Russavia (talk) 02:14, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
That section of their Seychelles article was rectified yesterday—not that that issue is of direct concern to the scope of "our" website. (The newspaper took a quick poke at the Norwegian site by not criticizing directly, but by quoting a dozen sentences in their entirity—letting the sentences speak for themselves. The newspaper did not criticize any wikipedian(s), or use any terms related to "semi-literate". I suggest that additional comments about that Norwegian article, should be taken to the Norwegian website—not here. English is accepted on their discussion pages. --Casiogry (talk) 05:36, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

trongphu (talk · contribs)

Please read this Mr. Wales! I will get straight to the point, first I have never vandal once in my 5 years of contributing to Wikipedia (most of the contribution is in Vietnamese Wikipedia, Wiktionary. I'm a sysop in Wiktionary). I have been permanently blocked due to my inappropriate language about a year ago (I lost my mind while discussing a hot topic, it happens to some other users too) (I'm still actively contribute over the past year). So simply put it I have been blocked for over a year. I think I have had enough time to think through it. I have already admitted my fault and promise to never do it again to the arbcom committee but they still refuse to unblock me. Block should be used as preventive not punitive, I feel like they just simply try to revenge me due to my past faults. After all the block purpose is to protect Wiki from destructive edits if there won't be anymore destructive edits, I don't see why the block is necessary anymore. Why permanently for me? I never try to do any harm to Wikipedia, I have always tried to help it. I think the punishment I received is "too harsh". There are users who did worse things and they didn't get block permanently. Everyone made mistakes at some points in the their life. I'm pretty sure my contributions overall outweigh my mistakes by far. Seriously what harm can I possibly do? How can it benefit English Wikipedia by keep blocking me? If you can tell me how can blocking me benefit the English Wikipedia then I will be happy to remain blocked. I promise I will never participate in any discussion in English Wikipedia anymore if I'm being unblocked and if I break my promise, you're welcome to block me permanently again. I'm probably don't even edit English Wikipedia again after I'm being unblocked. I'm not a type of person who breaks their promise by the way, I keep my promise strong, that is my character. Why do I care so much about being unblocked? Well I believe it has brought me bad luck (you can call me superstition or whatever, I believe in whatever I want to believe). It is kind of a shame too for a user with great contributions like me being permanently blocked in English Wikipedia. So for my personal reasons, I'm sincerely ask you with my best respect to unblock me please. This is my last attempt at this, I have made so much concession to say all of this and offered my best condition for unblocked. If this failed then there is really no use for me to continue begging. Regard! (talk) 22:30, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Just as an outside observer ... since communication in order to obtain consensus is a vital part of this project, promising to never participate in any discussions seems rather ... counterproductive (✉→BWilkins←✎) 12:36, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
I can see some misunderstanding right here. I mean as discussion is like debate or argument. It is one of the reason that eventually led me into block. Those hotly debate topics have led my language to become ugly. Since communication in order to obtain consensus, yea what you said is true but look what consensus are we talking about? I gave up on all of my topics. There is no need for consensus if I'm not arguing anymore. Anyway to simply put it, if I was being unblocked I promise to never participate in anything that would make me being block again. I don't think I will even participate in English Wikipedia, I will be pretty much vanish and do nothing, which means I can't possibly harm anything. I'm just hoping to clear my faulty past by the lifting of the block (of course the block still remains in the block log but at least I'm not being blocked anymore). (talk) 20:19, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
your blocking appears to be far more than just a little incivility. you were blocked 3 times before for disruptive editing, and you abused the unblock requests by ranting. -- Aunva6talk - contribs 16:03, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
What is your point? I didn't denying it. I clearly said I used inappropriate, ugly language. Look, that wasn't the same as vandalism. I never vandal, not even once. Vandal and incivility, which one worse? Which one is more deliberate destruction? Like I said, I lost my temper during hot debate. Do you think I enjoy insulting people just for fun? I wouldn't do it if it wasn't for some debates I was having. Plus that was more than a year ago. Seriously, can people just stop talking about the past and focus more than the present? Something in the past belongs to the past, it has nothing to do with today. For today, things like that will not happen again, I can guarantee it, if it happens again, I'm will be happy to be blocked again if I was given unblocked in the first place. (talk) 23:03, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Jimbo, I need your advice

Jimbo, I am under an interaction ban with another user. Although I had requested such a ban, my request was not acted upon, although a ban was enacted not long after. Both of us have been blocked in the past for violating this interaction ban.

The other party in the ban recently made a clear violation of both the spirit and letter of WP:IBAN. I posted a polite request for enforcement on WP:ANI, but admins seem to have gotten distracted by other, more exciting issues. An admin closed the request before any admin had acted on it with the stated intent that "it should not be left open until it recedes off the top of the page to see if there is an admin somewhere who will do something". I am being harassed by a user, there is a mechanism in place to deal with this harassment, but it is not being enforced. How can I get this harassment addressed, Jimbo? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 15:47, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

  • Perhaps try wp:AN as longer discussions than wp:ANI: Some notice-boards seem to have the attention span of a two-year-old, but wp:AN has a history of longer-term discussions, with less of a frantic need to knee-jerk a decision before a topic scrolls to the top of page. They really need to "triage" (split) various issues by priority, where some issues would get dedicated, long-term subpages, to discuss and track those issues for several months, while other issues would be discussed, closed and archived within a few hours. -Wikid77 17:01, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
  • This is hilarious. Delicious Carbuncle complaining of being harrassed; if it were true and not trolling, it wouldn't feel very nice would it DC? Looking at this history I am wondering why you haven't been blocked for edit warring. Russavia (talk) 18:26, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
    • It doesn't feel hilarious, Russavia. It feels like someone is deliberately targeting me and trying to make my experience here unpleasant. Since that person has previously tried to have me banned, I assume they are trying to drive me off the project. I think many people would call that "harassment". This is exactly what the interaction ban is meant to prevent. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 20:41, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
      • Right, and all of those people whom you actively edit warred with, prior to an editor coming along and taking the article to AfD as you should have done yourself to begin with, tell me, are they all harassing you to? Or did you just feel like disruptively edit warring? If anything, you should be thanking the person who started the AfD as it prevented you from continuing disruptive editing. Russavia (talk) 21:32, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Jimbo? I've also emailed this to you in case you'd prefer to reply in private. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 15:11, 13 April 2013 (UTC)


Feeling bored fellow Jimbo-stalkers? Tired of all the drama? Up for a challenge? Category:Wikipedia articles needing cleanup after translation is a list of over 400 articles, ranging from the very poor to the downright unintelligible, with some of the toughest ones listed here. Why not have a stab at one, you won't regret it.That is unless you spend 3 hours turning a nonsensical article about an obscure russian road into a great article only to realise you could count the number of visitors it will ever have on one hand--Jac16888 Talk 19:30, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Come on folks, there must be hundreds of people watching this page, surely at least a few of you are up for doing some work? These articles are a problem which is just getting bigger--Jac16888 Talk 21:25, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
In 2013, over 17,000 pageviews here per month, or "587" per day. -Wikid77 01:44, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
Good on you for trying Jac16888 but unfortunately that is a mere drop in the bucket compared to the total WP:BACKLOG. Editors are volunteers and do what the want to do not what they should do. I suspect the pages in that category are all pretty curly tasks making it of interest to but a handful of dedicated editors. We could always pay someone to do it... -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 22:50, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
I'll do it for £25 an hour. Malleus Fatuorum 23:07, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
I'll do it for NZ$10 an hour, well below the minimum wage here in New Zealand. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 23:10, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
Maybe we could cut a deal, rather than cut each others' throats? What's the position of the Wikipedia Editors Union on this kind of thing? Malleus Fatuorum 23:17, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
Lets talk turkey. Face-smile.svg -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 23:26, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
But seriously, I suspect that the only way to clear the backlog is with paid editing. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 23:26, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
I'm sure you're right. Malleus Fatuorum 23:30, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
..else, your only ffwcin' hope, President Jimbo. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:39, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
Congrats Jac16888 you win the inaugural BACKLOG OF THE WEEK at WP:BACKLOG. Give yourself a barnstar if you want. It may not do the task any good - there is only a mere 300 visits/month to that page. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 23:35, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Please behave people. I am incredibly guilty of dumping a machine translation on the above plate. I seem to remember Jac16888 chewing me out for it. The OP does have a valid point.--Canoe1967 (talk) 04:49, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
I am not generally a talk page stalker. I came here via a rather circuitous route. Canoe1967, I think we are behaving. I have just now recalled Jimbos stance on paid editing so the off topic thread is apt. Cheers. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 05:24, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

I did one, but honestly, if you want to "pay" people to do these, then I believe the currency that has established itself on Wikipedia as a means of reward is front page exposure via DYK.Volunteer Marek 15:40, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Thank you Marek, it's nice to know that there are at least some editors willing to put a bit of work in. And none of these articles are DYK eligible unfortunately, the whole point is that many of them have sat unchanged since they were created, in many cases several years ago--Jac16888 Talk 15:54, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
"From Wikipedia's most recently cleaned up machine translations" lacks a certain je ne sais quoi, though. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 15:52, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
Jac16888, as volunteers we all do what we can and want to do, and as I said the task that you want done is but one of an endless list. Volunteer Marek, don't assume DYN expose is what we want. For me, as a reward, DYN exposure is worth absolutely nothing. The satisfaction of a job well done and building something useful for all to use is my reward. But a financial reward will help. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 19:15, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
Yes of course we all only do as much as we're willing - hence my posting this here on the off-chance some editors may spot a backlog they were previously unaware of and decide to help out. --Jac16888 Talk 20:28, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
I thought the reward for fixing something was that you could finally get some sleep.--Boson (talk) 23:31, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
Why do you think I'm trying to recruit more people to help? Bloody tired. And fyi there are plenty of articles inexpertly translated from German that could use some help--Jac16888 Talk 23:55, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Discuss this thread 2 more days, with perhaps 2,000 viewers: Many of those articles seem easy to edit, and cover interesting topics, so I think several editors might help with the editing, after reading this thread for a few days (seen by hundreds per day). During the wp:GOCE backlog drives every 2 months, over 30 people revise about 900 articles, to fix similar wording, translation and punctuation problems, but in pages much larger and more tedious. Those 425 small, rough-translation articles would take them only a few days, so I know the work could be done quickly. -Wikid77 (talk) 01:44, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
    • I will take a couple that take my fancy. But not tonight :) Irondome (talk) 02:23, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Barnstars could be offered at the WP:Reward Board for cleaning up (say) 5, 10, 20, 50, and 100 of these articles - just a thought... EdChem (talk) 03:32, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
    • I have had a go at the Dead Man's Treasure article, but it could still use more work, if someone wants to help. Greek language skills would be particularly useful at this point.  :) EdChem (talk) 06:33, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Technical Suggestion/Idea

Hi Jimbo,

Just an idea for the probable next design of Wikipedia (just appeared in my mind and I am not sure if this is the right place to post it, I'm sorry if I'm cluttering the talk page): We could make the wikilinks in the article, appear alphabetically listed, possibly on the right side of the page, scrolling together with the page. A bot could automatically detect the links and update the list. They may be categorized as well. This would be of help for the people who don't read the whole article but certain sections; as the necessary wikilinks are provided at the beginning of the article. Cheers! --Stultiwikiatext me 15:02, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia on spanish is on the hands of a group

By hasard, this is a group of right or extreme-right. I don't care about if someone is of right or left, what I really care is if a group takes the control of an Wikipedia. I warned them that, if they eliminated this denouncement (, I will inform you about. So, it's what I'm doing now. These guys cover the actions ones of the others, and it's impossible, on this moment, to avoid inedit research on history, and to avoid extraordinary affirmations without sources on history on that Wikipedia. Theirs distortions begin by their proper name as sysops...they call themselves «librarians». They are a lot inventive. Abraço, Jorge alo (talk) 18:55, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Inventiveness is to be encouraged in almost all situations. (Sometimes, "inventive" is used as a euphemism for "lying" - perhaps you used a machine translator and it misunderstood?)
Even the word "disruptive" is now being re-purposed (in some parts of California) to have positive implications. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 22:07, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
Okay, a administrator of a enciclopedia project, or a administrator of a essay of building a enciclopedia, is himself a essay of administrator and not a «librarian». Calling himself a «librarian» is delirious. And «inventiveness» without sources, as «inedit research» without sources, are also delirious on a enciclopedia or on a project trying to build a enciclopedia. It's invention on the sense of invention without bases, or on the sense of bad invention. Sure that even disruptive behaviours have positive implications, and this is one example: the miserable behavior of a group of sysops of Wikipedia on spanish is showing that: 1-Wikipedia on spanish must go to University, or need a «Wikipedia on University Project»; 2- and particularly on History, because the specialists on History are running out from there (and I'm not speaking of myself, but of others that have contacted me); 3- that is necessary to develop the participation, on Wikipedia on spanish, of spanish speakers of South and North America, because we can see that, on this moment, is the Spanish Phalange's spirit, or some similar spirit of group, that is administrating the Social Sciences on that Wikipedia. Abraço, Jorge alo (talk) 07:08, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

A severe undiagnosed outbreak of FUTON bias afflicts a newbie editor :)

Hi all. I am putting this here because I frankly cant think of a more user friendly appropriate spot where I won't hopefully get roughed up too much :)

All I am suggesting is that sources, to be reliable and suitable for an on-line entity such as WP, must be instantly or easily verifiable in real time by the user. In other words, a cite link will take you to the text, or whatever medium is in debate, so that the user can verify and evaluate the claim using the same data as the editor used. A large proportion of cites on WP are basically unverifiable, unless one is in possession of an extensive library and /or has the time and resources in general to follow up the claim "manually". All I am suggesting is this instant verifiability be part of a "best practice" of ref quality on WP, and that it be somehow factored into existing WP policies on references. I dont know if it is, WP is so big and there is so many policy documents, (Ive only been an Ed under a year) A case in point would be if 2 refs were in an edit war or dispute, the one which can be verified in real time on line (and of course isnt total intellectual or factual crap) would have the more "weight" in WP citation policy? Forgive me if im making a gigantic howler here :/ Irondome (talk) 20:41, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

It's not a howler, but my view is if we have to make a choice between a more reputable source and a more accessible source, we should usually choose the more reputable source. Looie496 (talk) 20:48, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
Absolutely oppose. Your point could be summarized as "websites are inherently more accurate than books", which is pretty much the opposite of reality. If Wikipedia is going to have "most favored sources" policy (which it shouldn't), the bias should be towards print sources and away from websites. – iridescent 20:49, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
See also:Wikipedia:PEREN#Require_or_prefer_free.2C_online_sources and Wikipedia:WikiProject Resource Exchange/Resource Request--Canoe1967 (talk) 20:51, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
I was not saying that at all. My point is that sources should be as far as possible instantly verifiable, and not via bloody websites. I mean free source academic providers who are on line. Editors should be encouraged to use them as far as possible. I wasnt advocating WEBSITES. Merely that WPs mission of openness and transparancy in information be extended to its sources as far as possible. I wasnt advocating "if its readable now, it must be correct". Irondome (talk) 20:58, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for that Canoe1967. Just checked out the link you provided. interesting. I still think there is something we are missing on this subject. That proposal you cited looked quite blunt. Irondome (talk) 21:06, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
This was the original vision for the Internet. Unfortunately, roadblocks were setup to prevent this, so we have to work around it. One way to do this is to provide copies of the cited material directly in the footnotes. This isn't always possible, but I sometimes try to do this for sources that are not instantly verifiable. Another way to do this is to provide links to ISBN's, DOI's, PubMed ID's and JSTOR numbers. In my experience, most of our material is instantly verifiable, but there is a significant minority that is not. This is a problem with the architecture of the Internet (paywalls, no access to scanned books, etc) not Wikipedia. So in the end, I would disagree with your position that a "a large proportion of cites on WP are basically unverifiable". There are several tips and tricks that can help anyone verify hard to find information, but you have to know how to do it. If you register for a free account on Amazon, for example, you will double, perhaps triple your access to books for the purpose of verification. Viriditas (talk) 21:11, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
I really appreciate the rich feedback. I couldnt resist renaming the thread :) Cheers all Irondome (talk) 21:19, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
You are very welcome. I need an article from the January 1, 2005 Playboy that WP:RX can't access for some reason. I may go to a used magazine store in town and take pictures of the article. They will probably think I am strange wanting pictures of the text.--Canoe1967 (talk) 21:38, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
Not the Helio Gracie interview? RX is a fantastic resource I didnt know existed. Dohhh. Maybe one day PB will follow the example of Life (magazine) and put its entire collection online. Its a brilliant resource for work on mid 20th C US related subjects. Total goldmine. Irondome (talk) 21:46, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── No, but you can see my request in on the board with the header 'Highbeam' if you want to help with the article.--Canoe1967 (talk) 22:13, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Cool. Will have a look and a dig around. I believe in a modern variant of Library angels. Im suprised there isnt an article on it on WP. Arthur Koestler coined the term in The Roots of Coincidence, basically odd coincidental yet advantageous events leading to discoveries while researching in archives. Irondome (talk) 22:23, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

I had a meeting with the founder of the other day, and I'm just starting to do some followup. It strikes me as incredibly useful in helping us to sort out BLP concerns, and might provide a useful place to point people who are having a BLP issue that isn't our fault (i.e. some minor error in the media that they would like the opportunity to correct). I am here just opening a conversation about it, and about whether we should try to popularize the idea or form a little project for several of us to work together to go through their database looking for opportunities to improve Wikipedia.

As an example of a longstanding BLP issue that I've been somewhat familiar with, see: this footnote as a model of what I'm thinking of.

I would additionally be happy to carry back to them any suggestions we can come up with as to how they might modify their service to make it easier for us to use. (As an example, I personally can't seem to find in a quick look at the site an index of people by name that we could go through one-by-one.)--Jimbo Wales (talk) 18:55, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Addendum: This prior discussion is relevant. In that thread, skepticism is expressed about whether iCorrect really checks, based on skepticism that Bianca Jagger would really bother with such stuff. I know personally that she does bother with such stuff (having been contacted by her publicly over twitter), and in my meeting it was explained to me that they are very careful to make sure they are dealing with the right person. (This is the bulk of the cost of the service, I suppose.) But it does imply that if we are to use them more often, and more systematically, we'd probably like to see an FAQ from them explaining how they vet the submissions.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 19:09, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

So, in order to use iCorrect to "correct the record", a subject has to pay a huge fee:
Membership Type:
Individual: US $1,000 per annum
Corporate: US $5,000 per annum
Please explain to us how this isn't extortion of some sort? And, why would you want to align Wikipedians with such a business model? - 2001:558:1400:10:C910:B043:849:97B2 (talk) 19:13, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
I don't understand how it could be considered extortion. You are aware, right, that extortion is a crime? If you think it's too expensive, then start a competitor. I don't see how it is of any relevance to us, any more than the prices that (for example) providers of websites to celebrities charge.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 21:09, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
Mr. Wales, I can see a few points you may wish to bring up with them. I see that some of the corrections are well referenced. I can't see anyone falsifying those references as that would be huge egg on face and a waste of $5,000. Many of the references we can veryify but iCorrect could make a little mark by each one that they verify. Then we have the subject and iCorrect both verifying sources as well as us. Some sources will still be wrong like books with misprints of birthdates etc. I have brought up AllRovi as having dates that don't match other sources but do match a typo in a book for one article. I emailed four sources for that article. The two that had the correct date emailed back within hours confirming that they did check their facts. The two with the incorrect dates I have yet to recieve any response from after numerous emails. We can treat iCorrect as a more reliable source for a few reasons: 1). I doubt any of the subjects would use it to maintain untruths because that would be egg on face when caught. 2). The subjects do think it is worth the $5,000 for good PR. 3). Having them verify the subject sources and mark them will save us the time of going through paywalls, etc.--Canoe1967 (talk) 21:00, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
I'm not sure if I follow you so let me try to restate what you have said in my own words, to make sure we are on the same page. For some of the corrections, the subject has provided citations to other media or documentary evidence to buttress their case. For others, the subject just states their own view of the facts. For the former, you are suggesting, it might be helpful if iCorrect could confirm that the source says what the subject says it says. For the latter, there's not really anything to confirm, but that's ok since we'd only be using it to have a convenient reference for their side of the story. Is that right?--Jimbo Wales (talk) 21:09, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
I don't understand why it would make sense for the subject to have to pay to correct these things. All we should need is some system of "Verified Interviews with Biographical Subjects", perhaps run alongside OTRS, but also integrated into Wikinews, so that we have volunteers clearly establishing that the interview actually took place and the subject said what we think (s)he did. (Posting a recording of the video to Commons would set a gold standard, if desired) We certainly should not give the impression that you need to hire a PR person to fix your Wikipedia article! A self-published citation, even a blog posting as long as it is reliably attributable, should do in a pinch to establish that a notable individual has disputed a statement made about him or her. I don't think a 'reliable source' that a subject has paid for should be counted as more than a reliable source - for example, if someone pays iCorrect $1000 to lay accusations against a former spouse, I wouldn't think it would pass BLP to cite it in the spouse's article, because who would believe iCorrect, being paid, would really give it as harsh a fact-check as a city paper? Wnt (talk) 21:24, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
I should have been more clear in my statements. If a subject provides verified reliable sources then that would save us a few steps and much discussion. If it is just their statement without sources then we may treat it as just another self published source. If iCorrect is willing to take the extra step to verify and mark sources then that should carry mucho weight in discussions. I have yet to see an online newspaper have a convienient 'çorrections' tab so subjects can link to that on their talk pages, OTRS, BLPN, etc. after contacting the paper to publish the corrections. As many including Mr. Wales agree, we should really be going with facts and not always publish sources and material that is clearly not fact. These just lead to endless debates as to whose source is more correct and we end up with two birthdates in articles when one is impossible.--Canoe1967 (talk) 21:51, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
But our starting-point should be that everything on their site is SPS unless we can verify it ourselves, because iCorrect will be the paid agent of the article subject. Perhaps they can establish a reputation for fact-checking over time, but I think we would need to be cautious at first. Maybe they would think about systems where they would be able to show us - perhaps securely - rather than just asking us to take their word for it. It's not just about supposing they might be dishonest, but also that they might not be thorough. Formerip (talk) 22:33, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Some financial connections can be acceptable as not automatic bias: There is always some level of "conflict of interest" and a data-correction processing fee should be considered as a minor case. Otherwise, the identity of a person confirmed by government id cards should be rejected, because the person perhaps paid the state government a registration/licensing fee (as in U.S. states), and therefore the state might be lying about the identity just to collect more fees. Similarly, otherwise, the results of a notable competition would have to be discarded if the participants paid an "entry fee" for the event, because the conflict of interest would mean the competition was based on entrance fees, not the actual winning of the competition as an issue of merit or judgment. Similarly, no defendant should be allowed to testify in their own trial because "everything they say might be a lie" and if they state an alibi, then other witnesses who confirm the alibi should be discounted, also, because they could be lying to expect future payback for supporting the defendant's alibi. If that reasoning is continued to the full extent, then the only conclusion is the whole world is conspiring to tell a conflict-of-interest pack of lies, and there is no credible information to put in any articles, anywhere. Instead, consider a threshold level of bias, where conflict-of-interest benefits are too minor to cause a significant warping of the facts. In Wikipedia, the text is mainly sourced back to the reliability of the sources, and unless bias (or inaccuracy) can be proven, then the sources should be admitted. Assume good faith with the organization as vetted, and then check for reliable complaints to reject a source. -Wikid77 (talk) 01:13, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
All those comparisons are invalid. A state ID card is not fee-for-service - it is a tax for a legally defined product. (Simple distinction: "I'll take two, please?") Defendant testimony at a trial should be allowed, but it is a primary self-published source and we would not quote a trial transcript for an accusation against an ex-spouse either. Of course, if iCorrect cites reliable sources then by all means we can cite them also, but that's not citing iCorrect; it's no different than finding good sources from a blog posting. Wnt (talk) 02:57, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
The comparisons are valid, where a state ID card is, indeed, a fee-for-service to license an ID number (even if called a "tax"), as with a fishing or hunting license. (Simple distinction: "I'll take two, please?" or "I lost my ID card and paid the small replacement fee." Try that after losing a diamond ring or other product.) Just because someone paid a service fee does not mean the service is corrupt or biased, or could not provide accurate information, as a source to cite. -Wikid77 12:55, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Basic issues that I see: 1). Subjects of BLP articles would like to have us publish the truth. 2). iCorrect may help greatly, but it is a paid service. 3). Editors feel that any paid service should not be trusted. 4). Most of our reliable sources are paid services. Either transparent or covert. 5). Judge any source on merit, discussion, and consensus. 6). Try to publish facts as we accept them, not as the sources accept them.--Canoe1967 (talk) 02:05, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Why should a person's statement about their article weight more if it is given to a external site than given here? That is, if person X edits his article, say, correcting their birthday, that is unreliable and 'bad'; but if they say the exact same on a paid external site, it is reliable and 'good'? - Nabla (talk) 11:37, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
I agree. They should save the $5k and just bring it up on their talk pages, BLPN, or OTRS. (I have seen better success with help desk because BLPN tends to either be deletionists with entire articles or tries to add undue tabloid crap.) We editors can then examine all sources and seek consensus for the article edits. This happened with a subject that had the wrong husband published in a paper. She had the paper print a correction and we corrected the article. I left a hidden note in the blank spouse section, (her actual spouse had no RS), referring to the talk page in case anyone found the misprint and tried to add it again. After all of this they may wish to link our consensus to their iCorrect to make that entry more valid. There is no reason we can't be as reliable as any other source, if not even more reliable.--Canoe1967 (talk) 14:34, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
Well, the reason why I proposed some kind of verified interviews with biographic subjects is that there is almost nothing easier, and few things more amusing, than for a random troll to register on Wikipedia under the name of a famous person to impersonate, and try to start a confrontation which people here think is with the real person. If celebs put their statements on a third person site (even if it is only a blog) we can largely defer discussion of the authenticity of the site to the net as a whole, not just Wikipedia contributors. Wnt (talk) 17:49, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
That happened with one poor girl here. No one would let her change to her new website and I think they had her in tears on her talk page when no one believed her. She had to upload a video to Youtube stating in text and verbal what her new site was. Another girl simply wanted better picture in her article. She said she had the same one deleted at commons over 20 times before a friend from her Facebook page contacted me to help. It turns out the ugly image that she hated was copyvio anyway and was deleted. She had her account blocked because it was her corp name and all sorts of other abuse. I am amazed some admin and editors can sleep at night the way they treat the subjects of articles. I have yet to see any treated with decency and not just huge rants about policy and COI, etc.--Canoe1967 (talk) 18:58, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
Canoe1967 is right about what sometimes happens. But to answer the original quesiton from Nabla: "Why should a person's statement about their article weigh more if it is given to an external site than given here?" The main reason is that iCorrect provides a service to verify identities, something that is hard for us. But additionally, if someone verifies to OTRS, let's say (though that's not an ideal mechanism for lots of reasons) and they post to the talk page, we generally don't like (for lots of good reasons) to link to diffs on talk pages as sources for statements by anyone. We don't really have a mechanism for doing this well.
But there's another point I'd like to raise. Suppose we argue that we should be providing this kind of service to people, for verified interviews or whatever. That's an interesting argument, but the fact is, we don't currently offer that service. Therefore, I think we should be conscientious about a project to go through all the iCorrect entries and make sure that all Wikipedia entries are appropriately adjusted. And we should do that even if someone (the Foundation, say) started funding a similar effort. But I don't know that the Foundation is interested in doing that anyway.
And finally, note that many of the corrections on iCorrect are not the sort of thing that a celebrity wants to give an interview about, per se. Demanding that they submit to an interview with us, in order to correct some minor biographical detail, when they have already posted that correction on iCorrect, doesn't make sense to me.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 19:46, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
I see the point of the OP better now. I think iCorrect could help us scour their site for contradictions. We could have an iCorrect notice board here that they could link from their site. If the subjects wish to point out the changes then they can just have a rep post on that project page. If we don't like the changes or their sources then we can discuss what is needed on that project page and avoid the Streisand Effect on article talk pages. Thoughts?--Canoe1967 (talk) 20:00, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
Well if they do check (beyond asking for a payment) then they should be treated as any other reliable source, I presume. Unsure about further cooperation as I doubt WP may become its own source, even if by means of third party site, and keep our (small) reliability - Nabla (talk) 21:00, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── The site has a keyword search feature. Wikipedia produced only 5 results. may be the most crucial one at this point.--Canoe1967 (talk) 00:27, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

The idea of a project or a noticeboard for this would be complete overkill. It's not like they have an expansive database to be trawled (70 items, it seems like, relating to about 30 individuals plus a couple of companies). And, looking at them generally, they're mostly not the sorts of things that are going to be relevant to Wikipedia. I found one (John Bond (banker)), but someone had already changed the article, two years ago. I don't think it would be surprising if we went through the whole site and found nothing that needed correcting in Wikipedia. Formerip (talk) 11:01, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
There are over 1,780 entries ("corrections"), but only about 70 have been shown by the "browse" button this week. Perhaps there is a delay to verify claims, when making contact for verification, or else many items were not appropriate. -Wikid77 (talk) 12:55, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
Where are you getting that figure from? I've checked to see if the browse function had a 70 limited by searching for common names like "John", but I wasn't able to get anything to come up that I hadn't seen while browsing. Formerip (talk) 15:58, 14 April 2013 (UTC) - suggested website features

In this subthread, perhaps we could list specific features for to consider, whereas the above section is for discussing the impact (or usability) of the ICorrect service for Wikipedia pages. Some issues:

  • Provide index rather than browse: It would be nice to have an "index" button to show a list of perhaps 20 entry titles at a time, rather than browsing the full text of each entry.
  • Log month/year of each correction: Because Wikipedia citations show the date of the source ("date="), perhaps each correction could be dated to just month/year, whereas the specific date might be an invasion of privacy as to when a celebrity contacted the website. A date of month+year would be sufficient for Wikipedia when citing as a source.

That's a start for suggested features. So any others? -Wikid77 (talk) 12:55, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

  • Search Wikipedia: As I stated above a keyword search of their site only produced 5 results with Andrew Knight being the only one we haven't corrected. If the subjects include the term 'Wikipedia' in their corrections then we should be able to find them easier for correction here.--Canoe1967 (talk) 16:27, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

List of topics characterized as pseudoscience

I confess. I only noticed this because of a post at the anti-Wikipedia site which shall not be named (much).

Still, it's a terrible idea.

The basic problem is the "characterized as" part. We don't have "list of people characterized as physicists" or list of subjects characterized as allergens. Having "list of things characterized as X" is a roundabout way of having an article that is defacto "list of X" while disclaiming any responsibility for Wikipedia to determine whether the entries are actually examples of X at all.

If there is dispute over whether something is an allergen, Wikipedia isn't going to say "well, someone characterized it as an allergen, and the article name is 'list of subjects characterized as allergens', so we don't care whether it really is one." But that's exactly what happens here; for instance, see the last part of the talk page where someone complains that psychoanalysis is on the list. Ken Arromdee (talk) 19:25, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

I had a well-reasoned comment to the OP and a few good suggestions on how to move forward, but then I took a look at the talk page archives. No thanks, what a hornet's nest. I do hope some other editors look into this, though, it seems like a legitimate concern, but what a time sink!. Rgrds. -- (talk) 13:36, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
Ideally we would change the article title to List of pseudoscientific topics. "Characterized as" has an air of polemicism around it, and makes it seem that pseudoscientists are trying to defend themselves against what they see s unfair criticism, even when it's a completely evidence-based criticism. Wer900talk 18:03, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
"Characterized as" isn't so much polemicism, as it is an end run about Wikipedia rules. If it was "list of pseudoscientific topics", the editors would have to defend the claim that any particular topic is pseudoscientific. But since the article is "list of topics characterized as pseudoscience", the editors don't have to do that. They only have to show that the topic has been characterized that way without caring whether the characterization is accurate. The way this list is defined, whether something is really pseudoscience is completely irrelevant. But most people will read it as if it was "list of pseudoscientific topics". so in practice it means that the editors can create such a list without the inconvenient requirement of defending their decisions. Ken Arromdee (talk) 06:14, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

The list should be replaced by this figure Count Iblis (talk) 19:27, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Four bollocks? Surely that is pseudoscience (useful diagram, though.) Martinevans123 (talk)
I think the term pseudoscience offends many. I suggest the alternative title Things which are considered bollocks at the moment but may not be in the future. I think this would take the heat out of the debate :) Seriously, I had a look at the acres of discussion on it, and it terrified me. There does seem to be an over reliance on a single source, i.e Popper, by some parties in the discussion. Irondome (talk) 21:40, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
He's hot stuff as far as the "bollocks paradigm" is concerned. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:59, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
Precisely. And therein lies the problem, together with a variety of chopped meats and spices. We may be getting closer to a solution here.Irondome (talk) 22:06, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
We should all have asked astrophysicist Laurance Doyle. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:15, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
When in doubt, I tend to blame Gene Roddenbury for most things. Irondome (talk) 22:33, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
Let's leave pediatric psychoanalyis out of this, shall we? Martinevans123 (talk) 22:38, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
No, apparently it was William H. Parker (police officer) which just makes the universe a lonelier and darker place to my mind.Irondome (talk) 22:48, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Kurier article

Just to let you know: Today an article about you has been posted in the Signpost ("Kurier") of German wikipedia. Greetings, Stefan64 (talk) 22:01, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Translation here. And not surprisingly, it's another attack by User:Jayen466 over the Kazakh Wiki. I don't know what the rules of the German Wikipedia's equivalent of the Signpost say, but I would think that Jayen466 has a massive COI in writing about Jimbo when Jimbo has banned him from posting on this user talk page. If Jayen466's piece had a footnote saying something like "Note: the author of this article has been banned from the talk page of Jimbo Wales on the English Wikipedia", I bet it would put the thing into quite a different perspective. Prioryman (talk) 22:32, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
Opionion pieces are allowed on Kurier. Of course Jimmy is welcome to comment, if he wishes to do so. Greetings, Stefan64 (talk) 22:43, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
Of course opinion pieces are allowed. But isn't it a basic rule of journalistic integrity that the writer should disclose any COIs? As it is, Kurier readers are being misled, as they're not being informed that it's by someone who, as Rd232 rightly says, is "one of the more prominent critics" of Jimbo and someone who's under a talk page ban. Prioryman (talk) 22:47, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
The regulars on de.wp are well aware of this. On the discussion page several people have commented accordingly. Greetings, Stefan64 (talk) 22:53, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
Sure, let's talk some more about the context and wisdom of banning one of the more prominent critics from Jimbo's talk page. That could be a whole other Kurier article... Rd232 talk 22:45, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
Well, whatever your perspective is, I don't think there's much denying that it was, at least, wise. Formerip (talk) 00:00, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
How so? Explain.Volunteer Marek 02:42, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
Jimbo gets a significant reduction in drama on his talkpage and Jayen finds it harder to peddle stories to news websites if he has no easy way of getting Jimbo to comment. I don't see what the downside is, from Jimbo's point-of-view. I don't think Wikipedia is at all horrified. Formerip (talk) 10:15, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
Hmmmmm. Count Iblis (talk) 22:49, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
What was the context of the ban? A disclaimer somewhere on that rather shrill piece would have been more transparent, I would say. Irondome (talk) 22:53, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
Here is the ban message. It was in response to a campaign that Jayen466 has been running for some months relating to Jimbo's dealings with the editors of the Kazakh Wikipedia. See Jimbo's talk page postings for around 21 December 2012. Following the talk page ban, Jayen466 seems to have mostly been pursuing the campaign off-wiki. It's rather disappointing that Jayen466 appears to be continuing the campaign through the Kurier, without disclosing his own role. Prioryman (talk) 23:01, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
I lost interest after mssrs Blair and Campbell reared their expensive haircuts. They are highly respected political figures here in many quarters, and they won 3 UK General Elections rather handsomely. They would be honoured guests in most countries in their former capacities. I was waiting for the illuminati. Secret Nazi bases in Antartica and I would have been a happy man. Then I would have chucked my screen through the window. In the final analysis, I am under the impression that national WPs are self governing, so the responsibilty for best practice governance devolves on the active membership. WP operates in radically different enviroments, so its our duty to support fellow WPs under political censorship, but in the final analysis only those on the ground can achieve the aim of a truly free national version of WP. If one WP is under attack, we all are. I think we should develop that solidarity more. WP cannot just function in our cozy safe little Liberal Democracies. It has to grow everywhere or WP becomes meaningless in its original intent. It must be said that WP brings a greater level of openness within the society it operates it by its very mechanics and ethos. I would be a damn sight more concerned if WP was just blocked in K, period, and its editors persecuted. If WP is going to be a truly global, then WP is going to have to interact with those with less than "perfect" pasts, usually as a direct cause of the level of oppression that they have been exposed to in their native political enviroments. A sad fact of reality, but also hopeful, as many will be exposed for the first time, to a truly intellectually "free" virtual alternative. WP is the great invisible university campus that anyone can attend. Irondome (talk) 23:27, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
If Jayen466 had the interests of Wikipedia in mind, and wished to see Wikipedia prosper, I am sure that Jimbo would welcome him back here with open arms. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 23:59, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
Right, but it's Jayen466 we're talking about, so I doubt that will happen very soon; that being him wanting WP to prosper. I really don't know why the troll hasn't been shown the door completely from this project. Russavia (talk) 02:35, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
Jayen466 supports Wikimedia's mission. He works relentlessly for it. He and Mr Wales disagree on some things. He's been wrong about some things, but then so has Mr Wales. I see them as the Judean People's Front vs. the People's Front of Judea, and though I doubt a reconciliation is likely, I hope that some time in the next fifty years each will see past his resentment or disappointment and recognise the other's sincerity and value to the movement. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 02:45, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
Does supporting Wikimedia's mission including trolling editors by suggesting that they are queer because they hate women? Because he's done that. Sorry, the guys a trolling troll, nothing more, nothing less. There is also the question as to the veracity of his "research" in his attack pieces (like most trolling attack pieces I've seen) -- where he purposely omitted, or didn't do necessary research in ascertaining that RFE/RL were a sponsor of an organisation which he was trying to portray as the mouthpiece of the Kazakh government, is indicative of attack editors. This information was sitting right there on the information page for the organisation on, so one can only assume he was very selective in what information he presented. Not the signs of someone who is here for the right reasons. Russavia (talk) 02:58, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
Russavia, that really doesn't sound like something Jayen466 would do. You likely misunderstood what he said. Can you post a diff so that we can decide for ourselves? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 03:15, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
Anthony, I'm delighted to hear your reassurances about Jayen466's intentions, but quite frankly, this latest stunt of his leads me to perceive his aims and behaviour as directed exactly opposite to what you suggest. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 03:00, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
I suggest we end the thread, as the Editor cannot represent his views, so continuing in this vein is essentially fruitless and probably counterproductive to future events including possible approaches by the parties concerned. Irondome (talk) 03:37, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

I don't believe Jimbo's closed door policy w.r.t. Jayen466 here has anything to do with Jayen466's opinions, it is (I think) simply about Jayen466 continuing to raise the same issues over and over again here that have already been discussed in detail. After a while, any new discussion tends to degenerate into a polarized fight the moment it is posted. Count Iblis (talk) 12:03, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Follow-up: Ting Chen gave a statement on the Kurier discussion page about the relations between the Foundation and Wikibilim/Kazakh wikipedia. It's in German, but translation software is your friend. Greetings, Stefan64 (talk) 14:54, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

There's also this article "Wikipedia's Suicide Mission Against Russian Censors" (talk) 02:31, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Add a population database by country to wikidata

Hi, noticed yesterday that World Gazetteer, a highly valuable population resource website by country has announced its closure in July. I feel it would be very important to try to salvage the data and process it into wikidata before the website is shutdown and we can continue to build it and eventually try to provide population data for most settlements in the world which is there for every wikipedia to use at their fingertips. Please comment at my proposal here if you see potential in this.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 10:06, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

If this is the site you mean, that's just an individual hobbyist who has never made any claim to be a reliable source, and openly admits he uses "sources such as year books, encyclopediae, atlases etc, and data from other stats lovers" to compile it. If anyone's treating it as a reliable source, they shouldn't be, and it certainly shouldn't be imported into Wikidata or Wikipedia. The official sources should be the sources Wikipedia use for official figures, not his website (which may contain transcription errors or corruptions, or not be the most up-do-date official figures); obviously, the unofficial figures shouldn't be being used at all. (talk) 13:40, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Copy more of dewiki 30 nation population templates: The German Wikipedia already has 30 sets of quick auto-set population templates, to rapidly set the town/city population numbers in thousands of articles of 30 major nations. Back in September 2011, I copied the Austria meta-population templates from dewiki because it allowed me to update over 2,700 Austrian town articles (now 5,000?) within a few hours, as just a few total edits. I made some enhancements the next day, and then someone else decided to re-edit all 2,700 Austria town articles, but the idea was to just copy the meta-population templates from dewiki and have infobox templates update thousands of articles, by making just a few total edits. The current list of dewiki templates for 30 nations, uses typical 2-letter codes (AT=Austria, CH=Switzerland, DK=Denmark, FR=France, etc.):
  • 15 nations with several dewiki meta-population templates:
  • 15 nations with 1 dewiki meta-population template:
I would have thought that other nations would have been copied by now, but it seems that more need to be copied. -Wikid77 (talk) 15:36/21:42, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Apparently 5 nations have enwiki meta-population templates: I have found the following 5 nation meta-pop templates: Austria (above), Germany, Switzerland, Belgium, and Turkey. Those are listed in Category:Template:Metadata_Population. So some progress has been made. -Wikid77 (talk) 21:42, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
Just because it is a hobby for him doesn't mean that the data for lots isn't accurate. He's obviously found census data for a high nmber of countries. Obviously we'd need to chase up the sources used and then continue to build it as a resource using government data, but as a start to work off I think it would be a good thing.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 08:28, 15 April 2013 (UTC)


Trongphu: Why can you just say a word to me? I always look up to you as like the most respect leader on all Wiki projects. You have ignored me many times over the last 1 year. Seriously English Wikipedia is so much merciless compare to Vietnamese Wikipedia, it is much more friendly over there. Proof? 5 years of working with 0 block over there. I already promised "no trouble" and with the condition of blocking me again if I didn't keep my promise. Give me one reason I should continue be blocked and don't try to predict the future please. My block is obviously standing as a way to revenge me from some sysops who engaged in debate with me before. Quoted from Wikipedia policy page: "Blocks are used to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, not to punish users". Can you see I promised to not damage or being disruptive anymore? I probably won't even make another edit in English Wikipedia if I'm unblocked. I wish to be unblocked not because I'm eager to edit, it is just personal reasons. I'm disappointed in English Wikipedia for being merciless and hypocrite. I'm done here, I gave up. This only dishonors me more if I continue to beg. If one refuses to understand then he/she will never understand. Farewell sir, you won't see me again bothering you if you think I am. BTW I'm not. Sign... Ohh... The people! (talk) 23:50, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Norwegian User talk:Jimbo

Your page is being censored [16] by one of their administrators. (This is my first post.) --One Direction of norw (talk) 10:06, 15 April 2013 (UTC)SIGN

Three [17], [18], [19] of the users on your Norwegian talk page have been banned, without due process.

It seems that part of the problem is that the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia article in Norwegian does not have any references for its two norwegian translations of the name of the court. Ref needed-tag are being inserted, and then removed [20] wihout explanation.

The one translation calls the court, "... court for war perpetrator. If that had been the court's name, then that would violate a defendant's rights - in the same way that it would violate a defendant's rights to be forced to wear a T-shirt in court with big letters saying "He is a perpetrator. Everybody knows that he is guilty".

If Norwegian wikipedia has been spreading one poor unreferenced translation of the court's name (followed by one adequate translation) since 2006, then it's not the end of the world. Especially if no one has mentioned in on the article's talk page.

Nobody is perfect. Norwegian wikipedia makes mistakes. I make mistakes. Can't we just fix the mistakes and move on? --One Direction of norw (talk) 10:34, 15 April 2013 (UTC)SIGN

Should we adopt Norwegians' ref needed-tags policy

The Norwegian site has advanced past our's to the point where they have a de facto policy of reverting ref needed-tag insertions, followed by banning the users who insert ref needed tags.

Two of the articles where the above have happened are Power of definition and another one.

Maybe we should change our de facto policies. --One Direction of norw (talk) 10:46, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

This is the same editor who posted a couple of days ago as Whatthatspells (talk · contribs), blocked again for sock-puppetry, and showing up here with a new account, even though there is no reason not to keep using the old one. Looie496 (talk) 15:05, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
This is suspected to be the same editor. No proof, no circumstancial evidence—only the word of an administrator who possibly feels that he has had his feathers ruffled, and now has resorted to censoring Jimbo's Norgwegian talk page—the first time anyone has done that on Norwegian wikipedia.
The Norwegians have had a couple of documented incidents where innocent wikipedians have been blocked. --One Direction of norw (talk) 14:17, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Lack of permission for File:Paul Myners.jpg

Hi Jimmy,
this is jut to let you know that three months have passed since you uploaded File:Paul Myners.jpg to Commons, claiming that it was released under CC-BY-SA, which was proven not to be the case.

Many things have happened in the meantime, but one is constant: we haven't heard why you uploaded the picture under this licence, and why you left so many comments about how Commons (and OTRS) are broken when it turns out that the copyright owner did not free the image. People are getting the impression that you are trying to avoid discussing this particular subject; I hope that this isn't true, and will be looking forward to hearing from you at last. odder (talk) 11:48, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

As I have said, I'm working to track down and rectify the source of the confusion. Patience.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 12:56, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
Perhaps it would calm the savages, Jimbo, if you could briefly explain who you are communicating with, and what information you are seeking from them, that you believe will help track down and rectify the source of the confusion. (I.e., is there any chance that you yourself are the source of confusion, or have you eliminated that as a possibility?) - 2001:558:1400:10:2178:275E:1A53:BF78 (talk) 13:38, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
Until I get to the bottom of it, I won't know. I'm not willing to speculate about blame until I know who to blame (including me!).--Jimbo Wales (talk) 18:21, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Some people think a commissioned photograph is theirs: As noted weeks ago, some people might think once they hire a photographer to make a portrait, then that portrait should be theirs to distribute at will, unless reading the fine-print restrictions. Also, some people think Wikipedia images are display-only, so once they released them, then perhaps they were not aware how commercial companies could sell products using those photos. -Wikid77 (talk) 15:01, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Pregunta.. en español

Hola Jimbo Wales, he tratado de mejorar los articulos relacionados con Colombia, pues han estado un poco abandonados. Qusiera preguntarle si se podria arreglar por lo menos los articulos de Colombia en varios idiomas, algunos distorcionan la realidad del pais, todos sabemos que hay problemas como cualquier otro pais. He tratado de ayudar en el articulo en portugues pero fui bloqueado y no se me dejo hacer arreglos, en turco es muy deficiente el articulo, en ingles he tratado de arreglarlo, y en frances he conseguido ayuda, en aleman ha sido imposible modificarlo, en italiano. Le podria decir que la mejor version del articulo es la de español, pues es mi idioma natal y donde mas contribuidores hay. En si lo que le estoy diciendo es que he tratado de ayudar a mejorar la informacion relacionada con mi pais Colombia y es para mi imposible poder arreglar la informacion en tantos idiomas, quisiera poder contar con su ayuda en las traducciones para poder arreglar a nivel goblal la pagina de este pais o la informacion relacionada a este. Le sugiero visitar este articulo en español ....podra no ser el mejor de los articulos pero podria servir para mejorar los demas, usted entendera a lo que me refiero. Saludos desde Colombia--Roboting (talk) 16:24, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

English translation

Kumioko (talk) 16:39, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

  • Tagging pages for {expand Spanish}: The place to start is to tag each article with maintenance-tag "{{expand Spanish}}" then discuss issues on the related talk-page. (Spanish: El lugar para comenzar es etiquetar cada artículo con el mantenimiento de etiqueta "{{Template:expand Spanish}}" (ampliar español) y luego discutir los temas de la conversación-página relacionada.}} -Wikid77 (talk) 17:24, 16 April 2013 (UTC)


Hi there Jimbo. Don't think we've ever officially met, though I've engaged in some of the drama discussion on this page on occasion. Anyways, I had a lovely talk with David Rohde tonight, and he spoke highly of you. I wasn't a Wikipedian back when he was kidnapped, but I know that you helped with the media blackout, and I know that you took some heat for it. Well, just thought I'd say thanks for sticking up for the principle that real-world lives are more important than anything on Wikipedia. He's a fascinating guy, and I think it's safe to say that his insights have benefited the world far more than that minor ommission ever hurt it. — PinkAmpers&(Je vous invite à me parler) 04:37, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Since we've been having several censorship issues recently, it might be worth thinking this over a bit further. If Kidnapping of David Rohde is correct, it sounds like the "blackout" was due to a lack of WP:reliable sources, and had they existed, it wouldn't have been feasible. Also I think it would be useful to balance the sympathy for a specific, known victim against the effect on unknown individuals. When Wikipedia fails to cover a kidnapping, could it make some readers less cautious, and therefore increase the risk of a second kidnapping? Also, as the recent French incident reveals, allowing even the perception that admins can effectively hush things up could put them in danger from spy agencies or (other) criminals. I should emphasize that my purpose here is not to criticize Jimbo - I think admins definitely shouldn't have that much power, but if they do, then using it in the short term for what they hope is a good end is not the same as imposing a censorship regime on a previously free system. Wnt (talk) 20:14, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
For that kidnapping, it was arbitrarily declared that a source that reported it, usually considered a reliable source, wasn't one in order to justify the censorship. Ken Arromdee (talk) 15:00, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Every non-criminal has access to the sum of all knowledge, which any non-fascist can edit: Well, I guess there are some restrictions as to who gets to use and write Wikipedia articles. Things to ponder. -Wikid77 (talk) 15:01, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia users under attack

If you are used to manually type Wikipedia's web address instead of e.g. accessing it via your bookmark and you misspell the URL, you are at risk of downloading a dangerous trojan on your computer. That almost happened to me today, my antivirus software prevented trouble. I think I misspelled the URL as which then redirects to a German site where your computer will get infected by a trojan unless your antivirus software catches it. Count Iblis (talk) 12:23, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

The page is (screenshot). It didn't set off antivirus warnings for me, but does seem to have annoying adverts. This is known as typosquatting.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 13:31, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

TAFI made it to the front page

Today's Article For Improvement star.svg

Today's Articles for Improvement went live at the Main Page on 15th April 2013. Congratulations and thank you to all those who participated during the discussions.
We currently have 10 articles as our Today's articles for improvement. You can also help by improving these articles.
New nominations are also welcome at the nominations page.
Discussions to iron out everything are currently being held at the project talk page.
Thank you,
TheOriginalSoni (talk) 13:12, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
(From the TAFI team)

Let my people go (please)

Hi Jimbo, Hope you don't mind if I call you Jimbo and not Mr. Wales, but I've been working very hard for over three years now to present to the world the origins your culture on your lovely project here and never really introduced myself, but always admired you and assumed a connection with common goals. What I'm here to ask you to let my people go. By "my people", I am referring to the lines of Egyptian royal architects, grailkeepers and Fisher Kings (up to Alain (Fisher King)) that have recently been deleted from your encyclopedia. I would like them restored as soon as possible please, or else you will get Water and then probably Frogs (or something symbolically a bit like frogs). Sorry to appear to threaten and all, see it's not me really but 'im upstairs, he just chucks me down here every few years to act out this little skit. In all other respects, am loving your work! Enjoy the water! smiles, Px Moses Thebed (talk) 14:47, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

We are not responsive to threats, even if they involve biblical plagues. We are only responsive to reliable sources that are sufficient to establish notability. The waters shall not part until reliable sources command them to. Looie496 (talk) 15:32, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Discussion about Ignore all rules at the Village Pump (policy)

Because this affects one of the 5 pillars I wanted to leave a note here as well.

I started a discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Update to policy for Wikipedia:Ignore all rules about updating Wikipedia:Ignore all rules to reflect the 5 generally accepted exceptions. Please take some time to offer comments. Kumioko (talk) 14:49, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

This thread has already closed. Nothing more to see here! Kumioko (talk) 00:02, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, Jimbo.

I just wanted to thank you for creating Wikipedia. I really enjoyed the project & being a member of its community. I hope to someday earn the privillage of contributing here again :) GoodDay (talk) 15:40, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Hey, that sounds like you are planning to be driven away. Please, if you feel you are getting "angry enough to spit nails" then take a wikibreak, collect some photos, or check the backshelves of a library for a few days. I regret when people get edit-restrictions, get frustrated, then mega-violate the restrictions to prove how they cannot be treated as underlings. Instead, just try to work with others to help resolve the problems. So many amazing improvements are happening, around here, every week, and even the developers have been asking people to directly notify them of problems, rather than just "hope" errors go away somehow. The Foundation has been hiring more people to solve problems, and the future seems very promising. -Wikid77 (talk) 21:01, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
I would echo that. Don't go, or at least not permanently. The option of a Wikibreak is up to you of course. You seem a very long-standing and productive member. In my brief time here I have seen many good, and some great Eds falling into a kind of anger trap. We are all individuals, some Eds have POV, some believe Bacon wrote Shakespeare. Rise above it, severly UNDERSTATE your comments on WP, (A very effective weapon sometimes) and win the argument by quiet, often slow, rational gathering of other Eds support. A couple of intellectual victories, even minor, will restore your morale I think. Irondome (talk) 00:38, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

CISPA is back

See 1 and 2. How is the Foundation's position on this? hmssolent\Let's convene My patrols 05:06, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Would the currently proposed version of the Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act (CISPA) monitor electronic communications more closely than does the NSA electronic surveillance program?
Wavelength (talk) 15:27, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
After posting my question, I followed the second link to a page with a video that indicates that it would.
Wavelength (talk) 15:46, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
See also Computers and information technology Bills - (GovTrack).
Wavelength (talk) 16:53, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
This one's different; a couple of loopholes to the law - [21]. hmssolent\Let's convene My patrols 01:55, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
As far as I can ascertain, the Wikipedia community does not need to express a position either for or against CISPA. There can be a public-information page, Wikipedia:CISPA and you, linking primarily to the article "Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act" but also to other articles, and explaining more fully how the reader could be affected by the latest version of the proposed law if it is enacted. Careful attention to updating the article and the public-information page would be very appropriate. There can be external links to other websites, such as that of the Electronic Freedom Foundation, which not only provides information but also advocates a position, but Wikipedia itself does not need to advocate a position. There can be a banner at the top of each Wikipedia page, with the message "Wikipedia:CISPA and you—how United States government legislation can affect you and your use of the Internet. Click the link for details." The banner can be displayed to all readers continually, for as long as CISPA is being debated by Congress. In this way, readers can be informed about legislation and can manage their own Internet habits accordingly.
Wavelength (talk) 15:43, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Low IE browser stats explained

I have been puzzling about the widespread use of Internet Explorer (top world browser perhaps IE8?), and Wikipedia's growing use of Google Chrome, to seem to be the top browser. The only explanation I can deduce is an over-emphasis on repeat usage. Compare:

  • 1 guy in Google Chrome clicks 2,000 pages per day: 1 × 2,000 = 2,000 hits
  • 400 people in Internet Explorer click 5 pages per day:  400 × 5 = 2,000 hits

The result would seem 50% of users prefer Google Chrome, but the reality is that 400 of 401 users do not. Instead, 400/401 = 99.75% of those users are running an IE browser, just not obsessively as "2,000" clicks per day, because older IE browsers have been garbled or locking up in Wikipedia for years (5 views per day was work). For that reason, any major improvement in Wikipedia's support for IE7, IE8 or IE9 might have significant impact for the "typical" user (in the example, 99.75% of them). Also, it might take months before IE8 users realize how Wikipedia now supports almost every edit they make, even precisely positioning locator-dots on a map. So, if IE support had been miserable formerly, then after 2 months, the editor activity figures should climb. -Wikid77 (talk) 05:53, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

*blink* People still use Internet Exploder? Why, when Firefox and Chrome exist and are so much more faster and secure? (✉→BWilkins←✎) 11:26, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
Oh, please, saves us from that 'religious' nonsense. - Nabla (talk) 22:31, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
Well, I think Firefox and Chrome security has improved, see IE10. -Wikid77 15:01, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
I don't know, I don't care. What we can surely do without is with the silly remarks about Internet Exploder - Nabla (talk) 23:15, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
Oh you're right, there's no room for any form of humour on this project: especially humour that is NOT directed at another editor, does not violate BLP, or does not harm any person in any way shape or form. How dare I tell a common, well-referenced joke that is not harmful whatsoever. How dare I, indeed? (✉→BWilkins←✎) 12:16, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
"older IE browsers have been garbled or locking up in Wikipedia for years" - again, what is your basis for this assertion? I've done a lot of testing of Wikimedia sites in different browsers when I was working on the fundraiser. There are some formatting issues with IE6, but no real problems with any newer browsers. Certainly no locking up.
The increasing usage share of Google Chrome and decline of Internet Explorer is a general trend across the Internet. the wub "?!" 12:49, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
The problems with support for IE browsers have been discussed both here, and at wp:PUMPTECH, for years, with IE6, IE7 (Windows Vista), and until recently Windows 7 IE8 (which seems to work great now). There were several discussions of the misalignment of map locator-dots, due to needing "line-height:0" in div-tags. The lockups might have been related to JavaScript. -Wikid77 (talk) 15:40, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
  • See Usage share of web browsers. Chrome is one of a few browsers that fetches pages just in case you might read them. Other browsers - such as my own Firefox running NoScript - are invisible to the statistics. I imagine Google knows better than anyone the value of SEO in selling a product! Wnt (talk) 13:59, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Had forgotten pre-fetched pages look like more usage: That is another issue, where I had forgotten how the pre-fetching of related pages can look like higher Internet activity, to seem as though "all those users are as active" as the numerous people who do not pre-fetch pages. Also, the Google "command completion" for query predictions (to list partial matching phrases) could significantly make Google-fans seem as if being even many more people than a person who submits a whole phrase for Google Search, rather than log Internet traffic after every few letters typed. That explains the so-called worldwide "increasing usage share of Google Chrome" as prefetching of pages is considered as many more users, possibly exaggerated 10x higher. Thank you. Mystery solved. -Wikid77 15:40, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Sources about browser prefetching and market share: I found some sources which seem logical in the coverage about Chrome's prefetching ("prerendering") of pages and browser usage in March 2013:
As even Chrome 13 (now Chrome 25 and Chrome 26) was prefetching ("prerendering") several Google Search results webpages, no wonder it was seen as "more users running Chrome" rather than ghost activity by Instant Pages. It is amazing that some benchmark organizations have been able to discount Chrome's prefetch activity, as often 10x exaggerated web-presence, to determine how Internet Explorer has retained ~56% of browser market share, but I wonder if that prefetching can still be discounted, with talk of partial-page prefetching, which might count even more webpage activity, but only partial buffering of several linked webpages, to give any click choice a partial speed advantage without waiting for several complete prefetched pages. I half-expect someone to conclude, "Now 99% of the world uses Chrome and all your friends are lying if they don't admit they use it". As W. Edwards Deming warned, years ago, in measuring data, "By what method: only the method counts". If 10 pageviews, with 89 partial prefetches, is measured as 99 pageviews, then no wonder a browser with just the 10 pageviews could seem to be in decline. -Wikid77 (talk) 20:52, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Prefetch pages have header which stats programs can count: As suspected, I found a discussion where they talk about prefetch transactions having a special header attached, whereby the stats programs can differentiate prefetching, as done by Firefox, compared to normal page requests. So that assures, even with an increase in numerous partial prefetches, then some stats websites can correctly log that IE8 has retained a large browser market share. However, because the stat algorithms are proprietary secrets, then it might be difficult to find which browser-usage stats are discounting the ghost pre-fetch traffic, versus which stats are counting all/more browser traffic as evidence of "many other" browser users. We need to consider multiple forms of evidence about how many people are using each browser. -Wikid77 (talk) 22:26, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
  • I can explain why the usage of IE is so much lower. Its because "improvements" to Wikipedia over the years have been increasingly negative impacts when using IE. In the past onie could edit or browse pages in Wikipedia with IE without a problem but now its slow, produces errors frequently and even sometimes crashes. So, people either use a different browser, deal with the problems or don't bother with Wikipedia anymore...which also helps account for the noticable drop in usage over the past couple years. If we start thinking about how our improvements impact our users rather than make the changes and have the attitude that our readers/editors will change or live with it, we would be a lot better off. Otherwise we are likely to end up like AOL or MySpace. Kumioko (talk) 12:50, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Strange https links to WP from Google Search

As if there weren't already enough issues to consider, now the results from Google Search have been permanently linking to some WP pages by secure-server "https:" protocol, which seems to deter many users from reading those pages. We do not know an easy, direct way to reset a Google link back to simple "http" protocol, and all further edits have perpetuated the https secure-link prefix in Google. Some major articles have been affected:

When running Google search "Gone with the Wind", then it has been listing the WP link as "https:" prefix for over 3 weeks, since before 26 March 2013. Some other major articles also appear in Google with link "https:" so the problem is somewhat widespread. The developers have reported that they changed the secure-server SSL log, on 25 March 2013, to correctly record 1 pageview (formerly 2 views) for each "https:" clicked, but that does not explain how Gone with the Wind  would drop 75% of logged readers (for over 3 weeks). Using shows only "http:" prefix (no "https:" for these same WP pages linked by Bing). Now, there is still the potential for another log-error bug in the squid servers, but this is just a heads-up that we might need you to talk to Google people to reset these "https:" links to WP articles. I am thinking we could rename "Parabola" to "Parabola shape" temporarily leaving redirect "Parabola" to fade from Google (for a few weeks), then rename back as simple non-https ("http:.../Parabola") later, but no guarantee the "https:" would not return after that procedure. Again, just things to ponder. -Wikid77 (talk) 21:01, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Does anyone know why hits would drop because of https? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:07, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
See also User talk:Jimbo Wales/Archive 114#Draft Communications Data Bill (September 2012)
and User talk:Jimbo Wales/Archive 114#The proposed action to the UK government would likely be ineffective (September 2012).
Wavelength (talk) 21:34, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

This was first(?) raised at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#Sudden drop in pageviews, perhaps the discussion can be kept in one place? Fram (talk) 07:13, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

BTW, this image gives a good indication of the scale and suddenness of this change. Fram (talk) 07:15, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

How sophisticated are the logs on filtering out bots and spiders from the page view counts, and has the sophistication level changed? John lilburne (talk) 08:41, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
This would be a good argument to keep advertising out of Wikipedia. They would be tearing their hair out about how much money they are losing. They would then bring it up at contract talks and try to pay us less. I wonder if search engines have a covert method of placing ad revenue sites higher in search?--Canoe1967 (talk) 05:07, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Pageview drop could anger advertisers like AfD deletion: I agree that the 75% drop in pageviews of the many articles with "https" protocol prefix could be a concern for advertisers. Similarly, many editors could reach a rough consensus to delete their articles. Anyway, now I am worried that the readers are not viewing those pages because of https-prefix, but perhaps they really are, and the stats might not count the actual pageviews. -Wikid77 14:25, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Whether to include the FBI-distributed photos of the Boston Marathon Bombing suspects

Hi. You might want to read this and, possibly, weigh in. Talk:Boston_Marathon_bombings#RFC:_Include_FBI_photos.3F. This is the exactly the sort of situation that can bring Wikipedia into disrepute. I'm all about being cautious, but the pearl-clutching over WP:BLP issues regarding photos that the FBI has distributed far and wide seems a bit much to me. Nandesuka (talk) 03:25, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Policy says we can't use images of living people under fair use. The images are copyright so we need to have the rights holders release them under a 'free licence' through OTRS since they have been previously published. The FBI didn't take the pictures. If they had then they would be public domain as federal government works.--Canoe1967 (talk) 04:59, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
I am taking no strong position at the moment on this issue more broadly, but that's not a valid interpretation of policy. There is no absolute blanket prohibition of images of living people under fair use; policy is more nuanced than that. To cite an example from the policy page - a scanned baseball card can't be used as a general illustration of 'Barry Bonds' but it is possible that the same image could be used as an illustration in an article about the card itself. The photos released by the FBI aren't just general photos of the suspects, they are themselves historically important artifacts of interest in and of themselves.
Although I consider myself at the far end of cautious with respect to BLP issues, I also find the BLP objections to be generally unpersuasive. We should not, of course, say "Here's a picture of the guys who did it." We could say what is precisely true: "Here is a photo of suspects released by the FBI along with a request that people do x, y, and z." Given that the entire US (and global) media is broadcasting these images, we aren't violating anyone's privacy. I share general concerns that the FBI has gotten this sort of thing very badly wrong in the past, of course, but there isn't a lot we can do about that. As others have argued, this is not a random claim by a tabloid newspaper, likely to be forgotten tomorrow. Guilty or innocent, these two are permanently famous.
The argument that I would find most persuasive (as I say, I'm not taking a strong position on the issue) is that the image is not encyclopedic, on a general view that Wikipedia is not a newspaper. I am sometimes persuaded by arguments of that type and more thought about that seems warranted to me.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 05:11, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
I agree Mr. Wales. We are not a newspaper. We have File:James Holmes, cropped.jpg that IMHO should not be hosted but it seems readers need to know what orange hair looks like. We have File:Christopher Dorner.jpg because he is deceased. Mr. Dorner's friends and family may wish to provide a better photo but may not be offering since they think we have one already. Fair use gets abused a little too much with regards to people.--Canoe1967 (talk) 05:22, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
"Fair use" isn't my reason to say no to the images. The RfC is--and NOTNEWS, which I've been citing (no doubt) ad nauseam. Drmies (talk) 05:26, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
I agree with your point as well. They would still need to be uploaded under fair use guidelines. As Mr.Wales stated if we had an article on the photos or the investigation then they may reach consensus. The article is about the bombing though. The suspects will probably be caught before the RfC closes anyway. 30 days is default unless they wish to rush that like news as well. Once they are caught then do we delete the images because they have little value? The mugshots should be federal, better quailty, and thus be included in an arrests/suspects/ trial process section.--Canoe1967 (talk) 05:40, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
I'm more extreme on BLP than Jimbo and I'd say that this falls under WP:BLPCRIME. That discourages adding material that suggests that a person committed, or is accused of committing, a crime. It's true that this doesn't apply to famous people, but that should mean people who are famous independently, such as various Middle Eastern terrorist figures, not people who are famous only for being the target of the accusation.
I am also unconvinced that since the images are widespread, we aren't doing further harm. The name of the Star Wars Kid is also widespread, but we don't print it. We don't want to fall into Diffusion of responsibility. Ken Arromdee (talk) 14:51, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Two brothers from Kyrgyzstan named as the suspects: As might be concluded from the two men in FBI photos/videos looking closely related, they have been identified as brothers Dzhokhar A. Tsarnaev, on the run, and Tamerlan Tsarnaev (age 26), deceased in overnight shootout related to crime spree (source, of many: Guardian, "Boston bomb suspect Tamerlan Tsarnaev shot dead"). -Wikid77 14:25, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
  • WP:NOTNEWS but can report notable news instantly: All it takes is for news to be published in multiple reliable sources, and meet wp:GNG, and then Wikipedia articles can be instantly released for view. The distinction is between reporting any "news" versus reporting notable topics from "news sources". The topics must be notable, already published in reliable sources, but could be recent news. -Wikid77 14:25, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

URBLP status update and call to arms

BLPs tagged as totally unreferenced has climbed to 438. This backlog needs the attention of volunteers to correct bad tags, add references, or nominate for deletion as appropriate. Jimbo asked me to post here when the backlog starts climbing. Gigs (talk) 14:26, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

French intelligence forcing sysop to delete article

Wow look at the article I just found: [22]. Apparently french intelligence forced an admin to delete an article. What is the WMF going to do? nerdfighter 18:32, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

See "Wikimedia Foundation elaborates on recent demand by French governmental agency to remove Wikipedia content" (French wiki, but in English) (talk) 18:49, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Here's the quote from Wikimedia France.

    the DCRI summoned a Wikipedia volunteer in their offices on April 4th. This volunteer, which was one of those having access to the tools that allow the deletion of pages, was forced to delete the article while in the DCRI offices, on the understanding that he would have been held in custody and prosecuted if he did not comply. Under pressure, he had no other choice than to delete the article, despite explaining to the DCRI this is not how Wikipedia works. He warned the other sysops that trying to undelete the article would engage their responsability before the law.

    This volunteer had no link with that article, having never edited it and not even knowing of its existence before entering the DCRI offices. He was chosen and summoned because he was easily identifiable, given his regular promotional actions of Wikipedia and Wikimedia projects in France.
    — Christophe Henner, Wikimedia France

    It's a concern. (talk) 21:22, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
I doubt one has much to be concerned about there. John lilburne (talk) 21:48, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
Ssh..., don't tell anyone.
The equivalent English Wikipedia article (Military radio station of Pierre-sur-Haute) has been nominated for DYK. This reminds me very much of the situation we had a couple of years ago with the Seal of the Federal Bureau of Investigation. As on that occasion, I've suggested that the DYK nomination should be accepted but its publication be delayed for a couple of months to allow the controversy to subside. It's being discussed at WT:DYK#Controversial self referential DYK nomination. Prioryman (talk) 09:01, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
Another DYK: For many years, the BT Tower was not shown on Ordnance Survey maps, despite being one of the tallest and most prominent buildings in London.[23]--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 14:00, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
The fact that both you, and Wikipedia's BT Tower article, repeat that piece of nonsense (in reality, a lie made up by Kate Hoey in 1991) says more about Wikipedia's preference for anecdotes over facts, than it does about any alleged attempted cover-up. It takes all of 10 seconds on a map archive (old-maps, for instance; the coordinates are 529121,181972) to see that the Post Office Tower (as it was then) has appeared on Ordnance Survey maps since it was built and no effort was made to conceal the fact that it was a strategic location even at the height of the cold war; the 1968 OS map, for instance, has it labelled as "Telephone exchange and radar tower". Getting facts wrong in good faith when they're difficult to verify is understandable; repeating lies when they're so easy to refute is inexcusable. – iridescent 22:39, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
The claim is widely repeated, and I don't think it's disprovable from An old OS printed map, if you have access to it, would be a source worth sticking in the article. Rd232 talk 12:27, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
This map. One of the 1:1250 series. I'm sure somebody can identify its publication details. — Hex (❝?!❞) 14:32, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
On this 1982 London tourist map, it is descibed as the Telecom Tower.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 15:08, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Come on, we're not going to have a blackout over this. It would be massive overkill, frankly. This has the feel of a one-off incident, not a systematic threat like SOPA was. The Streisandification of this article is likely to be its own disincentive to any public body thinking of doing anything like that in future. Prioryman (talk) 18:08, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

(ec)Woah woah, take a step back folks before things get out of hand. Obviously this is a very serious issue: which is exactly why it needs to be left to the foundation to deal with at the moment before we go making plans for this and that--Jac16888 Talk 18:09, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

I think the WMF's top priority should be to ensure that there are ways for any admin in any country pressured in this way to secretly but effectively let them know if they are forced to do something under duress, that can reliably lead to a "coincidental" response by well-meaning volunteers that happens to undo the forced action without anyone knowing that the admin told anyone. The French mistake, which is highly unexpected, could be said to be that they forced the admin to do this without threatening him into silence about it. That differs from the way that National Security Letters on US ISPs work, for example. We should consider that France might differ from other countries only in this omission, rather than in the request, unless proven otherwise. Wnt (talk) 19:04, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
That's an interesting possibility. Could it be that this has in fact happened before, but it never came to public attention? I can't imagine it happening on the English Wikipedia, but I can certainly envisage it happening on other-language wikis where admins are located in undemocratic countries (Russia and China come to mind). Prioryman (talk) 19:08, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
But definitely not on Kazahk wikipedia.Volunteer Marek 19:42, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
Why do you say that? I think it could easily happen on the Kazakh Wikipedia. Everyone who is working courageously to build a quality NPOV encyclopedia in countries which do not respect fundamental freedoms is at constant risk of this sort of thing. The shocking thing about the French incident is that one does not expect this kind of nonsense from a generally rights-respecting country like France.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 19:50, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
I guess it could happen on the Kazakh Wikipedia but seeing how much Kazakhstan respects fundamental freedoms and the close relationship they have with the WMF I'm sure the French are much worse. A bit more serious: when stuff like this happens with a country like France it's exposed, picked up on, and everyone becomes aware of it. When it happens with countries like... Kazakhstan (and yes, probably China and Russia too), there's really no one there to pick up on it and you don't even know it's happening. In other words, it's not shocking. In places like France, corruption happens and it gets caught (sometimes) and everyone becomes outraged (as they should). In 80% of the rest of the world, corruption happens and nobody really cares. But you're drawing the wrong lesson from that.Volunteer Marek 01:33, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
That's an interesting lie, to say the word "WMF" and link to an independent organization. There is no relationship between the WMF and Kazakhstan at all, and I have and will continue to speak loudly against censorship and intimidation in all countries. Trying to smear the WMF like that, with a dishonest link, is disgusting, and you should apologize for it. Notice, too, how fundamentally dishonest your sarcasm is. "seeing how much Kazakhstan respects fundamental freedoms" - the implication here is that either I, or the WMF, has in some way been soft on Kazakhstan's violations of the principles of human rights. That's just an absolute stone cold lie. The important thing for people to wonder, when confronted with such a blatant lie, is this: what is the motive of the smear? What is the motive of the liar? Why don't you explain that to us all - why are you insinuating things that are provably and demonstrably false? Did I, or the WMF, ever say or imply the Kazakhstan "respects fundamental freedoms"? No.
If all you wanted to say was "One reason this case has gotten a lot of mainstream media attention is that it's so surprising. If it happened in an authoritarian country, there would be less interest, and that's a shame" then I would chip in and say: that's exactly right, and that's exactly why I spend so much of my time trying to work for freedom of speech in every country of the world. That you utterly fail to appreciate or understand why attacking me on this idiotic and dishonest basis that is wrong is a huge flaw.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 23:35, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
Well, the Wikipedia article I linked to says "Wales gave his own grant to WikiBilim as a contribution to the development of the Kazakh Wikipedia.[2] The Wikimedia Foundation has given the organisation a $16,600 grant raised from donations to the Wikipedia site. Contributors to Wikipedia in the West have raised the question of whether the foundation and Wales should be supporting WikiBilim in light of the backing it has received from the Kazakh government, which has been responsible for closing down independent media outlets in what Human Rights Watch describes as a "growing crackdown on free speech".
I was incorrect in implying that WMF has a close connection with Kazakhstan though, you're right about that and I'm happy to apologize for being imprecise. But there is a sort of transitivity here - Kazakhstan government appears to have a close connection with WikiBilim and WikiBilim appears to have some relationship with WMF. I mean, I guess one could argue that WikiBilim is an independent organization. Or that the connection between WMF and WikiBilim is tenuous. Ok. That should probably be clarified in the relevant Wikipedia article, as, given the current wording, I don't think that's how an average reader would perceive it.Volunteer Marek 01:59, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
Thank you for the apology. I have said in no uncertain terms both publicly and privately that the government of Kazakhstan should not expect to be able to control Wikipedia. I have also said that I think it is problematic that they have received funding from the sovereign wealth fund of Kazakhstan. But I've also done what many others have not - I've actually talked with Wikibilim about their stance on the issue and how they deal with it. In short: they don't edit Wikipedia directly in an official capacity (some of their employees do edit at home because, naturally enough, they are free culture activists), they have only 2 employees who have anything to do with Wikipedia at all as a part of their job duties, and their work in support of Wikipedia involves primarily going out to conferences of academics to encourage participation. I'm very concerned about issues of freedom of speech, and I find the Kazakh government's human rights record to be very concerning overall. But I can also understand and empathize with the desires of volunteers working under difficult conditions to be able to fund projects, and I can understand that in environments like Kazakhstan it's hard to do anything without government funding or approval of some kind. The important thing is that any funding that is received in that way must come with no strings attached, and the overall situation has to be monitored carefully to ensure that the things people like me worry about don't actually happen. I think it's very very wrong for people to blindly swallow the nonsense implications of critics who state the facts in a very misleading and sometimes even flatly dishonest manner.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 18:12, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
Jimbo, you clearly state that "I think it is problematic that they [WikiBilim] have received funding from the sovereign wealth fund of Kazakhstan". You also say that "I've actually talked with Wikibilim about their stance on the issue and how they deal with it". You also say that "I find the Kazakh government's human rights record to be very concerning overall". Here is a question for you. Can you point to even one public statement or utterance or diff of yours -- prior to December 15, 2012 -- that would underscore your personal and focused concern about WikiBilim's relationship with the Kazakh government or its sovereign wealth fund? I provide that date as the cut-off, because that is about when the so-called "nonsense" critics brought the Kazakhstan situation to your attention, and there doesn't seem to be any record of your ever having expressed any of the concerns you describe passionately above, prior to the "nonsense" being brought to light. I will flatly apologize if you can find one, just one, unequivocal statement of yours that expresses concern about WikiBilim and the Kazakh authorities, from before December 15, 2012. - 2001:558:1400:10:C15D:99B9:C1C1:6CF8 (talk) 20:10, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
I'm afraid I don't understand your question. How could I have commented on WikiBilim's receiving funding from the Kazakh government before it was brought to my attention? If you are asking why I never publicly criticized Kazakhstan's poor track record on freedom of speech before, I can only say that I doubt if I've ever publicly commented on, say, Belarus's poor track record either. I have said, clearly and plainly, that I strongly support the fundamental right of freedom of expression for everyone on the planet, but I haven't gotten around to specifically commenting on every single country in the world. If WikiBilim had asked me before they took that money if I thought it was a good idea, I would have said no, I think it's a mistake. I would have tried to get them the money from a better source. The "nonsense" that I refer to is not that people raised the question - there are, as I have said, many reasons to question things like this, and many concerns that have to be addressed. The nonsense involved such things as dark hints that Tony Blair had something to do with it, or that I might personally be benefitting from it, etc. That was then, and remains now, complete crazy talk.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 21:07, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
Jimbo, I'm sorry if the question was so confusing that you weren't able to understand it. Let's try again.
June 16, 2011 - WikiBilim receives a letter of support from the CEO of the Samruk-Kazyna Foundation, providing financial sponsorship to WikiBilim. A press conference announces this to the world, with participation of Ting Chen, then the Chair of your Wikimedia Foundation, Jimbo.
June 20, 2011 - The Wikimedia Foundation holds a board meeting via IRC. Ting Chen and you were both in attendance. Did Ting Chen mention his trip to Kazakhstan or the press conference that had taken place just days before?
August 3, 2011 - The Wikimedia Foundation holds another board meeting, this time in person, in Haifa. Ting Chen and you were both in attendance. There was a "Personal Activities Update", where "each Board member was granted 2 minutes to provide their colleagues with a personal and Wikimedia-related work update." Did Ting Chen mention Kazakhstan? Did you mention your plan to announce a "Wikipedian of the Year" award at the next few days' Wikimania summit in Haifa?
August 4-7, 2011 - You named the head of WikiBilim as "Wikipedian of the Year" and awarded him $5,000 of your own money. At this point, did you still not know "WikiBilim's receiving funding from the Kazakh government" because this was still "before it was brought to your attention"? In other words, Jimbo, is it possible that you selected such a prestigious award as "Wikipedian of the Year" without investigating and learning how the recipient's organization was being funded? Did you ask Ting Chen about his participation in the press conference about 7 weeks prior, to learn more about WikiBilim, to which you were about to hand a $5,000 check; if not, why not; or were you not aware of Ting Chen's participation in the Kazakh press conference?
Could you please comment on which of the following is more true -- (A) At the time you awarded Rauan Kenzhekhanuly (of WikiBilim) the "Wikipedian of the Year" award, you had only cursorily understood the connections between his organization and funding from the Kazakhstan government, but you went ahead with the award anyway; or, (B) At the time you awarded Rauan Kenzhekhanuly the award, you had no understanding of any possible connection between his organization and funding from the Kazakhstan government? Note that neither of these premisses nor the questions above mention Tony Blair or any other red herring subjects, so please just address the questions without trying to widen the discussion. Clarification of these points would help for some of us not to be called "liars" by you when we discuss matters that we didn't have visibility into. Thank you. - 2001:558:1400:10:B5EB:9417:83C0:16AC (talk) 13:37, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
Neither of these is precisely right, but it doesn't matter. I would give the award again today, proudly.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 20:39, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
That would be a good example of a lesson not being learned. Presumably the Kazakh government could rather easily go through Wikibilim's member list and find out who the admins are, and I imagine we might not even hear about it if their security services did something like the French did, or worse. Your endorsement might give some volunteers a false sense of security: how would you feel about yourself if something terrible happens? --SB_Johnny | talk✌ 13:52, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
Can you help me with the logic here? If I don't give him an award, he (or they) is (are) magically protected from persecution? That makes no sense. If anything, the opposite is true. The Kazakh government is well aware that I know Rauan, that I support the independence of the Kazakh language Wikipedia, and that I'll bring international pressure to bear if they do anything. Will that stop them? Not necessarily. But nothing within my power can absolutely stop them, I'm sorry to report. But suggesting, as you do, with no evidence or even coherent logic, that me giving Rauan an award creates danger for him is just scaremongering. He's a human being, he speaks perfectly good English, so why don't you ask him yourself rather than engaging in nonsensical speculation like this?--Jimbo Wales (talk) 17:23, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
Apparently several journalists have tried -- Rauan ignored them. Back to you, Mr. Wales...... (talk) 19:52, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
Still no comment? Y'know, some Kazakh-native contributors to the Kazakh Wikipedia don't realize that it's being controlled by the Kazakh government, so they could get into trouble for editing it. Has that ever occurred to you, Jimbo? (talk) 00:57, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
Rauan isn't the one at risk, since he seems to have fairly good connections in the regime. It's the people on the membership list, the people who won the laptops, and so on that are being put at risk of "extra scrutiny". --SB_Johnny | talk✌ 09:36, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
Just to clarify here: while your intentions were admirable here (growing open culture in places like Kazakhstan is absolutely a good thing), I had up until now thought it was just that you hadn't vetted his quite as well as you should have. If what you're saying is that you'd do it all over again even knowing what you know now, it's far more concerning. --SB_Johnny | talk✌ 11:29, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
Should I assume that you are waiting for Cluebot to answer for you? It's not hard to post a little something once a day, Jimmy.
If you're going to be an effective statesman for the culture of sharing, you're going to have to learn to own up to your own actions, because otherwise the culture you're trying to represent will end up being misrepresented when critics bring up your actions when painting us all with a big brush. --SB_Johnny | talk✌ 22:23, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
It's also a very interesting "non-answer." If there are parts that aren't "precisely right", perhaps the "precisely right" versions should be out there. Wikipedia has simply become big enough that such evasions (or soft answers if you prefer) really shouldn't be acceptable. That's one of the disconnects I've noticed in my time here. Claiming to be a repository of all knowledge brings with it increased responsibility to be transparent and forthright...things that appear to be lacking in key areas here from my vantage point as a lowly editor/volunteer. Between this and the Gibraltar issues (along with a laundry list of other growing pains and adjustment issues) it would seem that there are deeper problems here. Intothatdarkness 14:15, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

It would be very helpful for Jimmy Wales to communicate clearly when he became aware of Ting Chen's participation in the Kazakh press conference on June 16, 2011, and when did Wales become aware that the Samruk-Kazyna Foundation also participated in that press conference. Without his answer to that question, we still have a bit of cognitive dissonance regarding his statements about the award of the Wikipedian of the Year to a former Kazakh government official in August 2011. - 2001:558:1400:10:2178:275E:1A53:BF78 (talk) 13:44, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Still waiting for Jimbo's answer on this. It's been two days. - 2001:558:1400:10:6DE0:56C1:8482:D86A (talk) 19:49, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
Jimmy, you have been back to check in on this page, but you still have not answered the two questions in bold above. Should we break out a new section, so that you might notice it more clearly? - 2001:558:1400:10:8587:A528:1836:45F8 (talk) 17:17, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
I wouldn't know, but I guess you wouldn't either, since you can't spell it... Prioryman (talk) 19:47, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
You and Greg Kohs need to hang out more together. Correcting minor spelling mistakes of others and feeling all smug about it as a way of building heavy concrete bridges into a shiny new tomorrow where Wikipediocracy people and anti-Wikipediocracy people walk hand in hand together singing songs about how you get to make money of a public encyclopedia because you guys are such gosh darn good spellers.Volunteer Marek 01:33, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Jimbo, I've started a straw poll to propose that the appearance of this article on DYK (if it is accepted) should be delayed by three months from the date that the nomination is accepted. Please see WT:DYK#Proposal to delay publication of Pierre-sur-Haute DYK for three months and feel free to add your views. Prioryman (talk) 06:24, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm happy to report that I've voted oppose on your proposal, and that it appears to be going down in well-deserved flames. There is no place in our work to permit this kind of intimidation and we need to put the governments of the world on notice that you don't easily censor Wikipedia and that we will fight for our values.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 23:46, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
Well, this is rather different from your attitude towards the FBI seal issue back in 2010. Let me quote you on that: "Here is what will happen if we run this DYK on the front page: nothing much. The FBI won't do anything new or different. The press might or might not notice, and if they do notice, it'll lead to a couple of new stories at most. I'm not at all concerned about pressure from the FBI or the press - it isn't about that. It's really more about preserving the idea of NPOV and really taking it seriously. It's recognizing that running this on the front page *in reaction to a news story about the Wikimedia Foundation and the FBI* is not our style. If we were a tabloid newpaper, we'd likely take up the (very popular, as far as I have seen) cause of fighting the FBI on this, poking them about it daily. But we aren't like that, and we shouldn't be like that." (User talk:Jimbo Wales/Archive 63#Here is what will happen if we run this) You also said "I rather said the opposite: posting the contested logo to the front page would be clearly political, and Wikipedia should not be political." Yet here you are making an explicitly political argument for running the DYK. Your attitude has changed a bit, hasn't it? I guess this means you now consider Wikipedia to be "a tabloid newspaper" and are no longer interested in "preserving the idea of NPOV and really taking it seriously". Prioryman (talk) 00:00, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
I do not consider Wikipedia to be a tabloid newspaper, I am am 100% in favor of preserving the idea of NPOV and really taking it seriously. And yes, I have changed my mind on this issue to some extent. I'll note as well that the FBI sending an idiotic takedown demand is a very very different matter from summoning a volunteer to the office of a security service and intimidating them into deleting something under threat of being detained. Had the DCRI kept this to wrangling with the WMF through lawyers, I'd say: there's nothing to get excited about. But they crossed a line that I find shocks the conscience, and so in this case, I do not think that a presumptive ban on the DYK hook is warranted.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 18:03, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
Is Wikimedia's legal team looking at the legality of the agent's/agency's behaviour? --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 04:42, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Jimbo, do you have any sense of whether the WMF plans to take stronger action than the rather wimpy message we have seen? Is there anything useful we plebians can do to press for stronger action? I feel that it is very important to respond strongly to those police-state tactics, and that the world press would support us if we did. Looie496 (talk) 04:00, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
I don't see anything wimpy about the WMF response. But what additional response do you recommend? I agree with you that strong response is very important.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 15:10, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
Wouldn't any further response be redundant? The blistering Streisand effect has taught the officer involved and the agency everything they need to know about that kind of behaviour. Did the officer involved or the agency break French or EU law? --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 17:11, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
What we need to get somehow is more press coverage. There have been a few stories, but they have missed the central point, focusing on the demand to delete the article and burying many paragraphs down the really outrageous thing, which was intimidating an uninvolved volunteer into carrying out the deletion. Regarding the Streisand effect, people who are familiar with the American or British systems may not understand the degree to which government functionaries in France (and Italy, Spain, etc.) are unresponsive to anything except orders from their superiors. Looie496 (talk) 02:03, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

I have no idea whatsoever of what to do, but... I ask the WMF and Jimmy Wales, to consider the implications on the personal security of French admins of the French language WP. Most of all, I ask that you do not place THEM at risk to uphold YOUR beliefs. No matter how much I do agree with your beliefs - and in this case I completely do - I can not stop thinking what if it was the Portuguese intelligence doing that? Would I be threatened tomorrow? What would some smart guy in the US do for me? Write a post? You must think of something better than that. And a remark, here we go, with people asking for blackouts - that was the worst idea you ever supported... You weakened your - our - position as a institution looking to share knowledge, but with no "political party"-like activity. I hope it will not hurt us, and someone in France, now. - Nabla (talk) 23:20, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Non-edit to avoid unanswered questions being archived. (talk) 15:41, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
Nabla makes a good point. Our best defense is passive, not reactive. As I said before, we are very fortunate the admin wasn't threatened into silence about his actions. While it would be useful to make it as easy as possible for someone to "leak" that such censorship had occurred, we can't count on it happening. Our real defense is that we don't make a habit of accepting out-of-process deletions, we don't allow open-ended powers of speedy deletion, we don't allow admins to become so high and mighty that their word alone is enough to get an article quashed. And that can be a difficult line to hold! But hold it we must. Deletions must be looked over carefully enough, by enough people, that if someone is pressured into something, we'll be able to stop the deletion and say "what the heck are you thinking?". Only by ensuring that is what really happens in any incident can we make it unproductive to pressure our people. Wnt (talk) 20:12, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
I wouldn't say any of that is a bad idea, but I'm not sure it would solve the problem seen in this case. Someone was put under a great deal of pressure to act outside of process and they understandably did. More process wouldn't have changed anything, and we can't necessarily protect Wikipedia from anything ever going wrong. Formerip (talk) 23:18, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
The point of the process (even as it is now) is that one person who removes an article inexplicably will be reversed by another. So an agency can pressure away... won't matter. The article will stay anyway. While as I understand it (not knowing French that is!) while another admin didn't literally restore the article right away, there was immediate discussion during which it came out that the first admin had been pressured. So I take it (with low confidence) that failure to disclose the reason would also have led to undeletion. As long as the net result of intimidating an admin is that the article doesn't get deleted, people won't have a reason to intimidate admins and so it will happen less often.
I should stress that this logic applies even more strongly when organizations more powerful and/or aggressive than French intelligence are concerned - Mafia, Mexican cartels, and so forth. It is only a matter of time until one of these demands that Wikipedia sanitize its treatment of some famous figure in their organization, and when that happens it is vital that the coercion of any one person, even if 100% effective, has no net effect on the content coming out to the world. Wnt (talk) 15:24, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
From what I've seen, the impact of this entire controversy has been 100% negative for French Intelligence. From now on, they should change their name to "French Stupidity." All they did was to draw attention to whatever classified information was in that article and made themselves look like a bunch of Inspector Clouseaus. Coretheapple (talk) 17:45, 12 April 2013 (UTC)