User talk:Jimbo Wales/Archive 160

"I actually hate it here"
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User%3AXavexgoem&diff=600696487&oldid=596678167 "I actually hate it here." ] said yet another Wikipedian, administrator who started editing Wikipedia in 2007. He said: "I actually hate it here." and retired. So, Jimbo, I wonder if you're concerned at all that sooner or later toxic editing environment and bullies would take over the site you have worked so hard on?71.202.123.2 (talk) 16:43, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
 * As a recipient of plenty of it myself, yes, of course I do. At the same time, it is important to understand that there are huge swathes of Wikipedia editing which take place in a lovely and congenial atmosphere.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 17:41, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree that some editing is taking place in a lovely and congenial atmosphere, but lovely and congenial atmosphere is shrinking while poisoning atmosphere is growing. Wikipedia is still loosing editors, and you could make a difference.71.202.123.2 (talk) 18:40, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't think it is clear that there is any directional shift at all. Certainly people have been coming to this page for about a decade lamenting the loss of the good old days.  A common human affliction.  At the same time, it is always worth looking at specific problems and trying to draw principled general conclusions.  But usually when anon ips show up to authoritatively state that the world is going to hell in a handbasket, things get pretty thin when specific examples are requested.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 11:37, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I respectfully disagree, by dint of personal experience and also re the cases of people I know who have left and why; I wrote my response to you about this in a separate section below here.Skookum1 (talk) 06:57, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
 * If you're an admin, you've got to expect to be tossed into all of the acrimonious debates, wrestle the evil-doing bad guys to the ground with all the force of our guidelines and policies, deal with spammers and other miscreants - and all of the other political nonsense that goes along with it. If, on the other hand, you want to improve the article about Red squirrels (which is the first article I ever edited back in January 2006!) - you'll have a peaceful, fun existence and get the warm fuzzy feeling that you've improved the world by helping to create the largest repository of human knowledge known to mankind. 99% (at least) of articles here are great places to work - but (sadly) the admins are not needed in those place - so their stress levels are high and they see only the worst.  We should back our admins - understand their stress - thank them when we can and sympathise when wiki-PTSD strikes and takes one down. SteveBaker (talk) 18:28, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
 * You're right. in general. However if you look at the what appears to be 'the straw that broke' here it was a copy-edit, editing dispute over, get this, Ancient history.  This being a wiki, one can surly get fed-up with negotiating such things -- but in the end, it's a wiki. Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:38, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

It probably doesn't help matters that we're down to only about 600-700 allegedly active admins for an increasing workload of articles, IP vandals, disputes, ANI, etc., etc., etc., more rules on admin behavior, and then the fear (as we saw with the Kafziel case) that doing the right thing will get you drawn and quartered at arbcom if you happen to cross a persistent user with a personal fiefdom out for blood when poked at. --ColonelHenry (talk) 22:21, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
 * What's remarkable, ColonelHenry, is looking at Wikipedia's history...I saw some RFAs where editors were moved on to admin status after editing for six months! And some after just three months! And some of those admins are still at work today. But 8 years ago, Wikipedia was growing and there was a press to increase the admin corps and a lot of people who were judged capable were drafted. Now, the prospect of going through an RFA is daunting, years of varied experience in all areas of editing is expected AND you can't have made any major mistakes and have baggage. It's become ultra selective and I understand why...but unless things change, the numbers will just keep decreasing as there is always attrition. Liz 03:22, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree with natural attrition, but I consider it entropy...like the heat death of the universe.--ColonelHenry (talk) 16:49, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
 * ...but Oppose votes in RfAs are acts of choice — vigorous and uncoerced. --Ori.livneh (talk) 06:09, 30 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Many Wikipedia hostilities reflect the real world: I have come to appreciate "Jimbo's Wikipedia" as not just the "sum of all human knowledge" but also "some of the hostile ways in which knowledge is squelched" and perhaps the 2nd issue is just as important in what Jimbo has emphasized for the world. The "enemy at the gates" is not just amassing along the borders of the Ukraine. The problem is not just high-priced books and journals, but also people actively trying to suppress other information, as when told not to edit their company page, then some of them reduce the competitors' pages. Beyond the history of "book burning" or "Fahrenheit 451" I have met quite a few wp:TfDs ("Template for Da burning") as well. Someone even told me that wp:edit-conflicts which derail quick edits were a minor issue, rather than the primary reason it is difficult to get a classroom of 20 students to all expand the same new article. Wikipedia is being thwarted by invented limitations, at many levels, including the underlying MediaWiki software. -Wikid77 (talk) 22:25, 25 March 2014 (UTC)


 * I think it's worth considering that Wikipedia isn't in a vacuum here. See http://www.vice.com/read/how-corporate-lobbyists-use-the-internet-to-destroy-democracy (an article which specifically references Wikipedia) which alleges that Westbourne Communications ...engages in aggressive rebuttal campaigns, which involves creating a feeling among opponents that everything they say will be picked apart. This is an “exhausting but crucial” part of successful lobbying...  If this is true, I don't think by any means this company is unusual among PR firms in doing so.  Wikipedia rules have made it so that people are called out on the carpet for merely speculating when someone might be doing such a thing, but I suspect many of us cross paths with this sort of thing often.  The article talks about it being used against activists, but what we too easily forget is that Wikipedia's goal of providing impartial knowledge to all is one of the most activist causes there is. Wnt (talk) 02:19, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Well, the bad people are certainly driving the good people away. The underlying problem is that what worked when Wikipedia new doesn't work now......what enabled building it when it was new back then now enables destructive sociopaths, mob violence, and a random and destructive system of "policing".  North8000  (talk) 02:28, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
 * The underlying problem is that Wikipedia started with a lot of people building content but not much accumulated content. Now it receives a huge amount of traffic to these cumulative resources and is in a position to control a large amount of content, and various factions are fighting over that power.  The key here is to shatter that power, to make it so that a lot more people have the right to make content (including the ability to search that content) accessible in a global encyclopedic framework. Wnt (talk) 02:35, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
 * "Sociopaths," "mob violence"? No, it's just anonymous people working without pay. When it stops becoming interesting it becomes drudgery and I can understand why that person lost interest. Coretheapple (talk) 04:08, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
 * If that person would have just lost interest he would not have said "I actually hate it here". There's a huge difference between "losing interest" and "hating" the place. Besides that person's retirement is only one example of many.71.202.123.2 (talk) 05:17, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
 * He's welcome to explain what he meant. Coretheapple (talk) 13:16, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Two related thoughts made are worth repeating. I read the opening posts the other day, and walked away thinking about them, which led me to some of the thoughts expressed by user:North8000. It is well-known in the busines community that the set of skills needed for a start-up are not the same as the set of skills appropriate to manage a mature company. I wasn't here during the startup phase, but I've read enough of the hisotory to see the differences. Some long for a return to those days, but that isn't going to happen. We have to recognize that we are moving into middle age, and act accordingly. User:Wnt also makes an important point: in the early days, it was all about building content. While we are still building content, we have so much content, that we need ever increasing resources dealing with maintenance issues, which frankly, aren't as exciting.-- S Philbrick (Talk)  14:03, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I think that some of the most important fundamental changes are:
 * Wikipedia has become much much much more influential. So much much much more is to be gained or lost (and is at stake) by what it is an article and how it is written. So instead of the dominant kumbaya mission of "let's build an encyclopedia" dominating the psyche, POV interests and other interests have become much stronger and more prevalent.
 * The vagueness, and lack of carefulness of the rules, structures, and positions which is just what we needed when we were a "commune" has now turned against us.  The "system" has become weapons of warfare and of random harm to editors. And even where it is not mis-used it is not up to the task.  Can you imagine a system where the same person is allowed to be the police, judge, jury and executioner, they get the job for life, and the criteria for getting it is "got in back when it was easy"?
 * With (as it matures) the dominance of the "lets build something cool" slipping from 90% to 60%, much of the other 40% has been a lot of other things. For example, another place to play/participate in an on-line warfare game.
 *  North8000  (talk) 14:22, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I think you're making a very sound analysis. I think that the only way one can derive any satisfaction from volunteering for Wikipedia is to find a backwater where subjects that are not a subject of editorial battling, but are important and neglected, require attention. The idea is less to "build an encyclopedia" in the abstract sense, as after all the encyclopedia belongs to a third party, and one may not like what the third party is doing. But if one feels that the article on Extinct hummingbirds is neglected, and one feels strongly about extinct hummingbirds, then one can improve such articles without feeling a sense that one's time is being wasted. But I can understand why people trying to become involved in administrative stuff become frustrated. I monitor this page because I'm interested in the scourge of paid editing, and it has been a very frustrating experience that has not increased my satisfaction or made me feel better about Wikipedia. Coretheapple (talk) 15:25, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm in complete agreement: the more prominent the subject, the more acute the editorial fisticuffs, and the more "important" the subject, the greater the chance that one's sandcastle on the beach will be wiped out by an incoming wave. So, if somebody is bored and wants a challenge, there's a new monograph: John K. Derden, The World's Largest Prison: The Story of Camp Lawton. (Macon: Mercer University Press, 2012) about Camp Lawton (prisoner of war camp), a Confederate prisoner of war camp located in the defunct town of Lawtonville, Georgia. There are your red links, go to town... Carrite (talk) 17:40, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Actually I've found that subjects of importance sometimes don't have Wikipedia articles, when the sources are offline and/or when the subjects are not especially fashionable or recent, and/or when they concern members of minority groups that are not active on Wikipedia. For example, I was absolutely astonished to find that the single biggest road accident in U.S. history, an incident that helped result in abolition of a guest workers program, did not have a Wikipedia article. The reason was that the victims were Mexican migrant workers. Nobody cared then, or now. Yet there are umpteen articles on video games and minor musical artists. We reflect the prejudices and obsessions of society. Coretheapple (talk) 19:46, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Even for recent events, there's a real cultural bias. I've got a redlink on my user page for a Mexican band called Reyna De Monterrey that had 10 members wiped out in a traffic accident in 2013. Compare and contrast to the treatment accorded The Exploding Hearts, who are appropriately covered on WP. (While I'm name-dropping red links that maybe little birds will see, here's another subject of a recent biography that needs a WP piece: Mira Lloyd Dock; per: Rimby, Mira Lloyd Dock and the Progressive Era Conservation Movement. Penn State University Press, 2012.) Carrite (talk) 20:10, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
 * It's a weak spot. Take a look at Bracero program. There is an article, for sure, but it needs a lot of work. This is an area in which there isn't a lot of screaming among editors, just a great deal of content that needs work or creation. Coretheapple (talk) 21:26, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Our culture here on Wikipedia is in a very sorry state, one that developed out of years of letting the biggest and meanest kids on the playground call the shots. As a project, I think we need to do something to signal to the community, outside observers, and potential (or former) contributors that those days are over, and we need to back it up with some serious and visible changes in how we do business. We need some brainstorming about ways to get this community out of the doldrums so it can realize its potential. Everyking (talk) 04:02, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Here's the odd thing, though, re "the biggest and meanest kids on the playground call the shots". It seems that people mean entirely different things by that.


 * Because I see a fair amount of "Some of the admins here are horriblly cruel and arrogant, and they bully unoffending good editors terribly" and I see a fair amount "Some of the editors here are horrible and hurtful bullies, and the admins don't do anything". It's not likely that both problems are of approximately equal magnitude.


 * So when I see something like "the biggest and meanest kids on the playground call the shots" I literally don't know if the person is complaining about admins or editors. If we all pretty much agreed that one or the other was the real problem, we could take effective steps to fixing it.


 * But we don't agree. That means the problem is not obvious. If the problem is not obvious that's an indicator that it's not that real. Not proof, but an indicator.


 * Like this: if most everyone is in agreement that "The main proximate problem facing this community is crime" then you probably really do have a crime problem. If most everyone is in agreement that "The main proximate problem facing this community is police brutality" then you probably really do have a police problem. If it's half of each then you probably have normal life and people just engaging in free-floating complaining, which of course people do.


 * I've been here about ten years and haven't avoided contention, and it sure hasn't been my experience that "the biggest and meanest kids on the playground call the shots". There's politics though, for sure. Hopefully you didn't sign up expecting a politics-free zone. That'll only happen when the robots arrive (if then). Herostratus (talk) 06:24, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
 * It's easy to hate on admins or arbitrators because that is an easily defined group. It also leads to hilarious arguments such as how our "content creators" are little more than innocent flowers getting trampled by the evil admins.  Problem is, some of Wikipedia's biggest assholes and bullies are also content creators, and are themselves a very large part of this apparent cultural problem.  So, as you say, it becomes impossible to really argue that one group or another is the problem because the issue isn't confined to one group or another, no matter how badly certain agitators wish to claim otherwise. Resolute 16:36, 28 March 2014 (UTC)


 * there have been discussions about this for a long time and I have had a number of off-wiki talks with people about some of the good points you raise here. How do you think we can improve the situation and make Wikipedia culture be civil? --Pine✉ 06:39, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
 * My main suggestion would be that we declare a general amnesty for banned and indefinitely blocked users, as well as users who have been blocked for extended periods of time (with a few exceptions for some especially notorious individuals). There must be thousands of these people who have been booted off the site over the years, often because they fell into a petty feud or simply wound up on the losing side of some dispute, and I think we could do ourselves a tremendous favor by offering them all the chance to come back. It would be a dramatic signal to everyone that we have changed our ways, that the place isn't still run by gangs of bullies, and all the returning editors could do immeasurable good in improving content. Another change I would suggest would be limiting all bans and blocks to a maximum of six months. Everyking (talk) 19:25, 28 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Hostile admins must guard vast oceans of pages with slower software: At this point, it is almost too late to consider improvements suggested years ago, and that leaves the admins to guard 10 million pages (articles & talk-pages) hacked by pranksters, vandals and corporate product adverts, encased by slower compu-encrypted https-secure software. WP could have switched to a system of trusted users, with long-term accomplishments, with trust points perhaps earned by fixing hundreds of pages as requested. Such trusted users could have been immune to wp:wikihounding at wp:ANI, but instead all users must live in fear of a gang of accusers, or quit to get-a-life that week. Meanwhile, hoards of newcomers hack and slant low-protected pages, and the frantic admins must threaten and block thousands of people, with no system to judge user-trust levels. Meanwhile, the MediaWiki software gets ever slower, with compu-encrypted https pages using glitzy collapse-delayed menus, as thousands more pages need rapid updates to stay current, but the WMF grand solution is wp:VisualEditor to reduce updates as cumbersome, tedious keystoke entries, where the slightest wp:edit-conflicts will lose all keystrokes, rather than auto-merge changes to adjacent lines. Meanwhile, the admins learn of the growing infestation of unfixed vandalism, in outdated pages abandoned by people caught in the cross-fire of friends, or newcomers, soured by unfair blocks with no trust granted. Instead, the fading hope is to run even more Bot programs to auto-cleanse pages for hidden vandalism, as numerous editors sink to merely replacing simple disambiguation links to a specific article, while the hack edits remain in the nearby text and pages age even more outdated. Many major articles have not been improved much in over 3 years. So we see thousands of new editors try, but quit early, leaving the power users to rapid-update thousands of pages for minor changes. And the developers give us page contents mixed in 2 fonts, as Frankenfonts to disguise the aging Frankenwiki of mangled text. The future is very bleak and relies on increased automation to assist the dwindling core of active editors. -Wikid77 07:43, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I do not see how a less egalitarian system or a faster software could solve the cultural problems of general mistrust and divisiveness. Is "the growing infestation of unfixed vandalism" realy a thing? I notice a lot less vandalism while casually browsing Wikipedia than ten years ago. —Kusma (t·c) 08:57, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't see admins "guarding vast oceans of pages" all that often these days. Vandalism and spam protection is done by Joe Schmoe, who receives zero thanks for it and will usually have their edits dismissed by self-appointed "real editors" as "just button pushing". The admins who are most visible today are the bullies, particularly either bullying or patronising their cronies with the distasteful round of personal pissing contests and dogmatic, unconstructive bureaucracy. (Apologies to the good admins who are out there, but OSE applies to people too.) Andy Dingley (talk) 15:57, 5 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Allow me to chime in "In Defense of Bullies." Since Wikipedia is open for any schmoe to jump in and edit anonymously, without any registration or real life identification to make banning for COI even possible, there is always going to be conflict over content. It's a fact of life — involved, aggressive, opinionated people are going to attempt to power through their views, chasing off the meek in the process. There absolutely must be "countervailing power" on the part of WP's editorial cadres and administrative corps. It takes superior firepower to beat back the worst offenders, and that sounds, looks, and smells like "bullying" to anyone looking at things from a distance. So, yeah, I may not agree with everything that someone like Andy the Grump does or says fighting for NPOV content, for example, or I may not agree with Orange Mike's fairly extreme position on user names and obvious Paid COI content — but this hockey team needs enforcers like that so that serious people can do work. (Not to say that either of those fine gents aren't serious people, they both also do fine content work, but you get what I'm saying...) Now, if we as a community wanted to build the thing over from the ground up, with identification upon registration, sign-in-to-edit via password, and locking out users who violate content or behavior rules — hey, that's an option. It would take WMF fiat to initiate that and might entirely kill the project, but it's technically possible. But for our imperfect world, with our flawed decision to allow "anyone" to edit, we need our own set of bullies. True fact. Carrite (talk) 16:13, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Some fixes in the policies, and structures for admins, admin type roles and arbcom would 70% fix the problem.  North8000  (talk) 16:17, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
 * For what it's worth, for a while I was an admin who did the really nasty work around here. I've devoted myself to two articles on Wikipedia for the last year and 3 months (nothing to do with toxicity, the content of what I'm studying is extremely gripping) and not had any problems. Producing decent content doesn't automatically entail being a fuckwit to everyone around you, and the talkpage contains some perfectly reasonable discourse; people have disagreed with a few things I've put up and vice versa, and yet there's never been a tense moment in improving either article. Looks like everything there is in reasonable order. Then again, maybe people are so sick of my perseverating that no one else wants to work with me... The Blade of the Northern Lights  ( 話して下さい ) 16:38, 28 March 2014 (UTC)


 * The big question is about Wikipedia's dwindling number of editors. Sure, there are tons of new editors editing Wikipedia for the first time - hell, they're editing and creating new accounts as we speak. Just look at the logs. But at least 80% of them leave after the first day, some after they're hit with a bunch of warnings on their talk page telling them "You can't do this" or "Neutral Point of View" or "Your article is not notable, so it has been put up for speedy deletion". Many of them are driven away at the Wikitext they need to learn just to edit an article. "Easy to edit?" Sure, definitely. But is it actually easy to edit? I never figured out tables, and I still can't. Will VisualEditor help retain some of the newbies coming on (and possibly call back some that have left)? Probably. I'm not saying it's a bad idea. But VisualEditor could drastically affect the way Wikipedia works. All of a sudden it becomes harder to get messages to users, as it's easy for them to simply ignore HTML comments and turn articles into ashes. It could also confuse newcomers when they're told to "substitute" a template when the "Add a Template" feature mentions nothing about substitution. We should tread carefully on these grounds.


 * Indeed, while a wiki aims towards a peaceful, harmonious atmosphere to function, that's about as realistic as a child begging his parents for vegetables after he sampled some of McDonalds human feedlot food. There are a lot of good, friendly, and happy editors here that I've met, but there are lots of grumpy ones here as well. Happy ones that hesitate behind rollback and grumpy ones that template the regulars because they're sick of people not using the preview button and turning the entire article into bold text. Is Wikipedia's "friendly" atmosphere in jeopardy? Seems like it to me. However, as Wikipedia has grown to a size even I cannot imagine, trying to maintain a friendly atmosphere is next to impossible. If you and a small group of friends, totalling maybe about 10 people, got together and sat down over a cup of coffee, it's easy to maintain peace between all of you. However, if you bring in an army of people, it seems almost natural for everyone to break apart, form their own groups, and then (inevitably, as the group gets larger), fight each other. Civility is a must for Wikipedia, but it seems to be dwindling as grumpy editors drive away friendly ones. Both newbies and experienced editors can become grumpy, and it's easy to do so seeing how large Wikipedia is (and how much work there is to be done!).


 * Wikipedia is suffering from growing pains, but I can see the potential this place has. I've mentioned Wikipedia so many times in countless school assignments, and it's because I like helping out in a large project. It makes me feel like I'm part of something big. Having Wikipedia fall into a deep dark hole and never resurface will turn me into a laughing stock - and possibly put me out of a hobby I enjoy. K6ka (talk &#124; contribs) 02:18, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia does well in unique viewers and article count. I too wonder if this place will eventually mostly be run by bots, COI editors, and a few grumpy regulars. We must make a future better than that. WikiProject Editor Retention is interested in this problem and a lot of WMF employees are also. WMF has done some good work with projects like Teahouse and guided tours. I would like to see WMF put active editor growth at the top of its list of priorities. Some projects that are underway are Snuggle, Flow, VisualEditor, recruiting IP editors, and growing the education program. There is also a discussion happening about updating the English Wikipedia adoption program. I will ask WMF to comment on this thread for more information about active editor population projections and the major editor engagement projects. However, we editors also need to work on this problem by making English Wikipedia a friendly and engaging place for good-faith editors. --Pine✉ 05:36, 30 March 2014 (UTC)


 * The idea that the English Wikipedia can be made a friendly and engaging place for good-faith editors is ridiculous, and no way possible while Wikipedia in under the heel of the current absurd and surreal admin system. Here hundreds of individual admins appointed for life have the freedom, like vigilantes, to emerge from the woodwork and arbitrarily demolish content builders at whim. Until Wikipedia can be brought under some measure of transparent central control and accountability, and until some measure of natural justice is seen to be in operation, Wikipedia will continue spiralling down it's present course. --Epipelagic (talk) 09:20, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
 * You are correct. Let me say also that we have run off so many editors, and disillusioned so many others, that we lack the reliable pool of committed, long-term content editors that we really need and certainly should have by now. The turnover rate around here is astounding and depressing. People don't want to work in this abusive atmosphere, and a large portion of those who are willing to endure it get blocked anyway. We treat people like trash, force them out, and then wonder why there are so few others lining up to volunteer for the same treatment. Everyking (talk) 01:30, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Is it really about content-creators now? With > 4 million articles, maintenance is a bigger issue than creation, even though knowledge, like the universe, continues to expand. "Content creator" and "admin" are not mutually-exclusive but I think that there are a lot of non-admins who do little but police and, really, we need them in that role because of the sheer number of policy breaches: POV, non-RS, promotional, outright vandalism, BLP etc. I for one probably spend most of my time reverting people nowadays - it isn't a lot of fun and most of it falls into the category of needs to be done rather than can be done. I've probably driven away as many people as your average admin without ever having use of a block button but I can't in all honesty say that I'm either ashamed or proud of it: it just is what it is. - Sitush (talk) 01:44, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
 * We have plenty of pages now. We still need content, and we need quality content. If you ever think "It's all done by now", just take a look at the Vital Article lists and judge the quality of the poorer bluelinks. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:05, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
 * @Pine. Re: " I too wonder if this place will eventually mostly be run by bots, COI editors, and a few grumpy regulars." — What do you mean eventually?!? :-). Carrite (talk) 17:28, 30 March 2014 (UTC)


 * There are still a few nice, open-arm editors that are out there, but if this keeps up, soon they just might leave for a nicer, friendlier place. Which would devastate Wikipedia. K6ka (talk &#124; contribs) 00:30, 31 March 2014 (UTC)


 * You can count me among the "grumpy editors". However, although I am on the way out, it is not because of good/bad/indifferent admins but rather a cumulative series of events. I suspect that is the case for many others who have put in a few years here before calling time. There is too much rubbish content that has little chance of improvement, too few decent contributors, and too many new contributors who not merely lack clue (which is fixable) but have no great desire to gain it (which usually isn't). It ceases to be fun when it becomes clear that the regulars are basically a tiny group of people fighting - yes, fighting - with millions.


 * Sure, there are pleasant backwaters but one reason why they are backwaters is because they are often not articles that attract a great deal of attention - been there, done that. Articles that attract a significant number of viewers etc are, almost by definition, the core content of any encyclopedia; everything else is filling in the gaps and "handy when you need it" stuff. Don't blame the admins, though, because they really are not the root of the problems. The flaw in this project now is probably the same thing that was its USP originally: the ability for anyone to edit it. I've no idea what the solution may be, sorry, but there is little doubt in my mind that the India-related stuff, at least, is a lost cause - even the few admins that have a familiarity with that are walking away. - Sitush (talk) 01:08, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I think an important aspect we need to emphasize and evaluate when looking for administrators is how well a nominee deals with the multiple perspectives present on almost every controversial topic. Instead of increasing the overall number of administrators, we need to find facilitators who can moderate solutions on these pages; potential admins should be well-informed of their position as a moderator and should have a strong background in such negotiations. Otherwise, we run the risk of driving away quality article contributors who are not necessarily fit to be admins. Solving this problem is key to editor retention on Wikipedia. Seattle (talk) 01:50, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
 * That might work if editors were willing to consider that opinions of others as valid, but they don't. We have too many editors with an MPOV here who think that their version is the neutral version.  We've attracted more of these over recent years, those who want Wikipedia to reflect their version of neutral, than editors genuinely interested in simply reporting what the sources say given the weight that they sources say them.  They do this by arguing that sources that don't support their POV are not reliable sources.  Dispute resolution, for these editors, isn't about collaboration, they want to be vindicated.--v/r - TP 02:05, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

It's always distressing when a friend posts a resignation announcement, even if you've been around long enough to know that nearly all of those assertions turn out to be "premature". The problem there isn't "retention of editors"; it's "retention of my particular friends".

The research shows that the actual editor retention problem isn't with us old hands. The rate of old-timers quitting these days (really truly quitting, not just saying we will and then posting a retraction after a few days of people telling us how wonderful we are) is about the same as it's been for years. The major causes for individuals voluntarily leaving or dramatically cutting back are the same as they always were: real-world work and family obligations. One of the most serious drains on editor retention is someone finishing school, getting a good job, getting married, and having kids.

The real decline—what's different now compared to 2006—is with a desirable group of inexperienced newbies. A lot more of them used to stick around past the first day's edits. One significant cause of people not coming back for a second or third day is aggressive reversions, rather than collaboratively building on what someone did (for example, reverting an addition because the formatting was wrong, rather than fixing the formatting). Huggle didn't exist back when I thought that Cancer and Category:Cancer had the same result. Someone just cleaned up my mess, without reverting everything I'd done in that edit and without yelling at me, much less blocking me. I believe that editor's quiet, collaborative approach is why I'm still here today. My experience doesn't seem to have been very unusual back then, but I don't believe that as many of our new editors encounter that approach now.

Anyway, if you'd like to know what the research says about what's really going on with editor retention, you can start here: http://www-users.cs.umn.edu/~halfak/publications/The_Rise_and_Decline/  WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:06, 1 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Although nothing is really surprising, it's nice to see common knowledge quantified like that. Wily D 09:01, 1 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Wait. That article is saying that the primary reason that editor retention is declining is because too many people WP:BITE the newbies? Well...makes sense to me. - Jorgath (talk) (contribs) 16:05, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Seems easy enough until you get into things like Indian castes, where you get semi-coherent attacks on you everywhere you turn. New users aren't as innocent as people make them out to be, in my experience; no matter how new you are and how much you may be genuinely attempting to edit in good faith, I give no respect to anyone who tells me I'm a genocidal freak who deserves to be fucked with a knife. For all the bitching about how mean we are to new users, it should be pretty simple to tell specific people what to do differently, and I have yet to see that in all but the most extreme cases. Either people are too lazy to do so, or experienced editors biting new users isn't the main source of the problem; if the latter isn't the case, I want some evidence. As a great song once said, "I don't care what you say, let's see Exhibit A". The Blade of the Northern Lights  ( 話して下さい ) 17:27, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi Blade, I agree with you that newbies aren't all as innocent as spring lambs. If you read the paper, you'll see that they had to set up two different categories to track undesirable newbies (blatant vandals vs people who just aren't here to build an encyclopedia—a category that could cover everything from moderate levels of self-promotion to trying to "make friends" to trying to convince the world of The Truth™ about Indian castes, or whatever it is that the newbie is concerned about).
 * I wouldn't characterize the problem as laziness. It's more subtle than that.  We've constructed tools that do something necessary (protect article quality) without regard for collateral damage and missed opportunities.  We made reverting newbies with no personal contact and no effort to collaborate be the simplest, quickest, easiest option, and we rewarded people who took that simple, quick, and easy option.  This change happened well before your time, but you might consider looking at old RFAs.  Before rollbacker was a separate right (in 2008), we rewarded people (with adminship) for reverting thousands of low-quality edits, but we didn't notice, much less penalize them, for the effect they had on driving away new editors.  We said, "You reverted 10,000 (mostly) bad edits?  Great, be an admin so you can revert even more".  Nobody ever said, "You were so busy clicking 'undo' ten thousand times that you missed the opportunity to create ten decent editors and to improve a thousand articles."  If you took the other approach—if you moved slowly enough that you were able to notice and cultivate a potentially good editor and to build on low-quality efforts instead of just removing them—then you had a lower edit count and nobody interested in rewarding you with adminship.  In fact, you frequently weren't even rewarded with respect.  You weren't regarded as the person building the next generation of editors; you were the editor of such dubious morals that you spoke politely to alleged spammers and editors who didn't add sources and other suspicious newbies.
 * As for evidence that biting new users is a main source of the problem, may I suggest that you actually read that paper? ;-)  WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:17, 1 April 2014 (UTC)


 * The categorisation in Halfaker's paper misses an important distinction within category 3: "Good-faith: trying to be productive, but failing". This includes two quite different groups:
 * 3a: Trying to contribute to the encyclopedia, but failing for reasons of inexperience or technique
 * 3b: Trying to contribute in good faith, but on a completely non-encyclopedic subject
 * 3b is a very large class, including people who think this is a social-networking site like Facebook or LinkedIn for them to write about themselves and their friends or post their CVs, and people who think it is a free platform for them to "tell the world" about their company, group, favourite cause, Theory of Everything or invented religion. The number of contributors in this class has been growing as Wikipedia becomes better known and its reach extends. Halfaker includes them in "Desirable newcomers", and that distorts his findings.


 * Class 3b people have an unhappy experience, because their contributions are rejected, and it is all too easy to treat them as spammers or self-promoters, forgetting that they did not know, because no-one told them, that that is not what Wikipedia is for.


 * This problem could be reduced if we made some effort to explain at sign-up time what Wikipedia is, and more importantly what it is not. If the sign-up page said something like:


 * "'Wikipedia is a project to build an encyclopedia. It is not a social-networking site, or a notice-board for announcements. If your aim is to tell the world about yourself, your group, your company or your cause, this is not the site for you to do that.'"


 * then the number of class 3b people having their work deleted would be reduced, and a great deal of wasted effort on their part (and ours) would be saved. The load on New Page patrollers and admins working the speedy-deletion queue would be reduced, so that they would be less likely to feel that their job was to man the barricades and keep the barbarians out, and would have more time to engage productively with class 3a, which is where we are failing now.


 * I know the general ethos is "encourage everyone to come and edit, put no obstacles in their path", but maybe it is time to rethink that. This would turn away some potential editors, but I think they are less likely to be discouraged by being told at the outset what WP is not for, than by being let in to spend time and effort on something which never had a chance of being accepted. JohnCD (talk) 14:52, 3 April 2014 (UTC)


 * We can actually try something like that. I was part of the team that led the current redesign of the signup page. If you're serious, we can with not too much difficulty test both different text or a video. I think that honestly the tone you used in the example text is a tad lacking in good faith, but in general the hypothesis that telling people up-front what's in and out of scope for the project is not a bad one at all. Want to help me give it a try? Steven Walling (WMF) &bull; talk   04:48, 6 April 2014 (UTC)


 * I am dead serious, and I will certainly help give it a try. I think this is the single most important thing we could do to reduce wasted time and frustration. As a first shot, here is a proposal I made two years ago. The words can certainly be adjusted, but not to the point of concealing that, for many of the hopeful newbies who turn up at the gate, the message we actually want to convey, dress it up how you will, is GO AWAY!
 * Where shall we pursue this? JohnCD (talk) 11:02, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

If we really want to fix things, we really need to start with defining the objectives and decide what problems are working against them. So elevating cool thoughts ("any one can edit") or other arbitrary metrics (# of editors) to "primary objective" status is a completely faulty process.

Or else skip to an obvious item. The reality is that at many levels Wikipedia has become an often-vicious miserable place for both new and key editors and workers. And that inevitably will hurt ALL objectives. The tools of peace have become weapons of warfare. The one larger-than-others cause is that the rules and system is now very often used for abuse or abusively, it needs to be written and structured better to avoid that.  North8000  (talk) 11:56, 4 April 2014 (UTC)


 * The declining engagement of new editors is probably not fixable by policy change, but by boots on the ground. Experienced editors going out, finding the new editors who might become productive, and showing them the ropes.  It's work though, and liable to be thankless, so it's tough to do.  (Though Wikipedians have been known to work for barnstars). Wily D  16:30, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Probably the most needed missing group is people with expertise in the topic areas. (BTW, the really destructive people who survive in Wikipedia are NOT breaking the rules, they have learned how to USE the rules to conduct their destruction.) There's an area where I've edited where I've also authored sources that others are citing. I encountered a sociopath experience there (someone who knew how to mis-use the rules) which would have driven 99% of victims away from Wikipedia. They'll think say "let's see, do I do it for free for wikipedia and get abused by wiki-empowered sociopaths,, or do I do it elsewhere for money nice words....tough choice".  There will always be some bad people, the problem is a system that is so easily misused for that type of thing.  North8000  (talk) 21:28, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
 * To some, it is also just a game, and the rules are just tools to be used; a game in which they have little stake other than remaking things to reflect their own worldview. The policy side of Wikipedia is actually very good, but like all good laws, much depends on the presence of enforcement and watchful awareness of the existence of those who game the system. &bull; Astynax talk 18:34, 5 April 2014 (UTC)


 * What I see as discouraging to editors who have left is their sheer frustration with CoI and PoV-pushing editors who sidetrack constructive contributions with endless and intransigent nibbling away at reliably sourced information. They insert or revise statements backed by corporate, personal, organizational or similar partisan PoV sourcing. In many cases, when resolution is sought, harried admins are deflected from focus on whether the editing at issue reflects what reliable sources state (which is what we all supposedly want) onto personal issues of Wiki etiquette or accusations of other behavior. Indeed, content disputes get very short shrift or are rejected outright during dispute resolution—an odd thing when reliable information should be the beating heart of any work bearing the word encyclopedia in its title.


 * Somehow, the aim of Wikipedia to summarize what reliable sources say about a given subject has become subverted, and in some cases I believe intentionally so, by a focus shift toward editor/admin behavioral issues. PoV-pushers have long noticed that Wikipedia does not have any serious fact checking mechanism, and relies instead on consensus, however marginally acquainted with a subject or anyone responding to a RfC may be. Even RfCs often veer onto perceived behavior issues, rather than content. Provoking constructive editors, including admins and experienced editors, into disputes that drag on endlessly through all the "resolution" steps is soul-crushing. Even worse, if a constructive editor or admin hasn't decided to retire during the process, s/he may actually be sanctioned for too vigorously defending the Wikipedia goal to summarize what reliable sources say. Others just drop out after one or two of these experiences. If this is discouraging to experienced editors and admins, it is easy enough to imagine how observing or experiencing one of these cases impacts a newer editor–somewhat like a child sitting through acrimonious divorce proceedings and being expected to come away with a rosy appreciation of the merits of marriage and parenthood.


 * For articles on subjects that are not currently on the public radar, it is too easy for a persistent CoI/PoV editor, backed by one or two occasional contributors who sympathize, to turn an article into a PoV or CoI puff piece that is seriously at odds with, or ignores, what reliable and scholarly sources report on the subject.


 * Disputes should be a side issue, and the aims of the encyclopedia should not be impacted by them. Upholding the content policies should come first and foremost. Unfortunately, that is too often not now the case. &bull; Astynax talk 18:34, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
 * The reason why things veer of into "onto personal issues of Wiki etiquette or accusations of other behavior." is simple, it's because mudslinging and ad hominem attacks WORK, and as long as it is done cleverly, Wikipedia not only allows it, it rewards it by smacking their opponent. Changes in policies and structures would fix this.  North8000  (talk) 18:43, 5 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Part of the issue with disputes is the uneven standards we place on new and IP editors in comparison to older, more experienced, heavy content creators, and in some ways that is actually fair. But, too many times editors are dragged to ANI over the most ridiculous reasons and then if dragged there enough times, no matter the outcome....editors will use that as a means to ruin an editors reputation, drag them through the mud and create disruption (if even just slight disruption). And then there is the scarlet letters used against others...the block log. But old timers do tend to just assume they know better than those with less edit counts and years in. This is pretty common in the real world as well. When faced with these situations things can quickly fall apart, but what do we do in the real world? Why can't these principles be applied at Wikipedia? Because when a crowd is sourced to make decisions...you cannot predict the direction it takes. We have no King, no president and no responsible party to oversee a site that literally defines the world around us. This is simply an opportunity too ripe, too good to pass up for some. Yes...there really are editors that try to undermine the very stability of the project. But they are not even half the problem. There are the disenfranchised, those pushed away from the community for one reason or another but allowed to remain.....as long as the don't pull to hard on the leash. And yes, we do, very much leash our editors here a great deal with sanctions. And who ends up with those sanctions at the highest rate? The newcomer. We have never even really tried a different approach, we just sanction them with very little opportunity to teach....and oddly enough this is supposed to be an educational project yet, we seem to be more like a social network or message board or political forum more and more everyday. I think we need to begin development of new tools, new methods and new forms of teaching to combat new editors that cannot understand the complicated mass of policies, guidelines and procedures. Simply put...we need more education and less "walking the plank".--Mark Miller (talk) 05:43, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is a human enterprise. There's no flaw here that doesn't exist in the real world, and it's no more or less difficult to get these traits under control.  All of the major problems facing us today are simply the result of human nature, which is something we will never subsume. Conversely, that same nature is what keeps the project going in the first place, so it's not in our intrests to try to subsume it.  On a personal level I've been driven to work on two articles literally every single day, and on a broader level it's caused people to spend their time working to try to improve our interactions wtih each other. If there was some way we could bring out Wikipedia's equivalent to the Grand Commonality I'd be all for it, but it simply won't happen. That's why I prefer to think of things in a manner more like Jiang Jingguo; if you think you have a solution put it forth, don't write enormous treatises on it. The Blade of the Northern Lights  ( 話して下さい ) 15:29, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
 * In the real world, and I hearken back to the days when I contributed to a print encyclopedia, there is a distinction between writers/content contributors and editors. The editorial staff verified that an article met guidelines for grammar and style, fact checked, passed for legal issues and then did any necessary redacting to fit the article into the publication. Once the article was publication-ready, there wasn't further quibbling about things that had already been examined and resolved. New information and corrections continued to be made between editions, but existing information was not scrapped without compelling reasons, and additions and corrections had to go through the same editorial process. I submit that this time-tested method still works, and that the problem isn't that Wikipedia has too many or too few editors, but that it has no (or at least very few) true editors that fill the functions of the editorial department in traditional reference publishing. The closest we have is FAC review, and even when something has passed that process, the article is still fair game for tendentious editors. When everyone's an editor, writer, researcher, etc., it is no wonder that there is an acrimonious atmosphere, particularly with the opportunities that opens to CoI and PoV editing. It is possible to fix, if the community is willing. &bull; Astynax talk 21:33, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

People really want to fix this? There's a simple solution: real names. People don't misbehave as much when their actual identity is tied to each and every edit. It adds a level of self-restraint that this culture of anonymity defeats. The reason this place gets so interminably nasty is because most of you wear masks. If you can't bring yourself to remove the pseudonyms, at least expose the IP address of every single edit and use some cookies to defeat casual sockpuppeting so that socking is reduced to a manageable level.&mdash;Kww(talk) 15:52, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I find suggestions like these hilarious because nobody thought them through. Have you any idea what the moral and legal implications would be if this were actually put into effect?  Konveyor   Belt  20:07, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
 * If one were to do it retroactively, there would certainly be moral and legal implications. To say "going forward, there will be no more pseudonymous editing" wouldn't have either of them. As for using simple cookie and computer signature based solutions, I don't see any moral implications at all.&mdash;Kww(talk) 20:24, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
 * But it will be put into effect sooner or later, as we all know, either through surveillance or through ISPs being obliged to submit their logging data to national authorities. I edit under my real name, and I urge others to do the same. Eric   Corbett  20:29, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
 * If you preemptively and willingly do what they would do "sooner or later" because you firmly believe that they'll do it anyway, sooner or later, then you're part of the problem.  Konveyor   Belt  20:42, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
 * You fail to understand what the implications would be. Even if it was done "from here on out", there would be tons of problems. Imagine for a second you are the head of a multinational oil and petroleum companies. Randyinboise1 makes an edit to your page claiming that your business practices violate such and such environmental laws, and that you are a bad company. With your changes, it would be too easy for you the CEO to find out his identity and sue the poor fellow. Even if you didn't have a Wikipedia account, it would be simple to go and register one, and perhaps make 10 bogus edits if it is restricted to autoconfirmed. How then, would Wikipedia look as an organization if its volunteers were being doxed and sued?  Konveyor   Belt  20:37, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
 * So your thesis is that without the ability to commit libel with impunity, Wikipedia would collapse? I tend to think it would make Randyinboise1 much more careful about what he wrote. I know it makes me much more careful about what I write.&mdash;Kww(talk) 21:37, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Then its just a self-imposed censor, and Wikipedia is not censored.  Konveyor   Belt  21:42, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Feeling responsible for my own behaviour is unacceptable because it's a form of censorship? Thanks: you brought a moment of amusement to an otherwise bleak afternoon.&mdash;Kww(talk) 21:49, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure to what extent having your real name out there would make you feel responsible. More likely it would be used as a gateway for IRL harassment and legal issues.  Konveyor   Belt  23:11, 6 April 2014 (UTC)


 * why don't you respond when pinged to a discussion questioning your decision to indefinitely ban a user?. Lesion  22:05, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Do you actually have a specific question about the block? You simply stated that you thought it was too harsh. No one else seems to agree.&mdash;Kww(talk) 23:08, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Remember Micropedia in the struggle
Overall, I think it is good for people to conclude, "I actually hate it here" and consider how to improve the conditions, or decide to leave if they have no time for the struggle. Perhaps one of the best hopes for improvement would be the Micropedia project, where pages would not be separate articles (or massive "ranticles") but rather snippets to show together in collected display-sets. The important impact of a Micropedia is to stop the rampant wp:data hoarding in common topics, where a simple topic lists over 400 footnotes (tangents) to cover what should be, perhaps, a 6-paragraph article. Of course many of the rant-pages can seem interesting when obsessing on a subject, but we still need to explain a topic within a few paragraphs and then have a way to link to the current diatribe pages which wander aimlessly among hundreds of questionable tangents. For encyclopedists who think Wikipedia is utterly doomed to the swamp of infospam, information overload, then the Micropedia project could offer hope for creating simple, "easy" pages where the page-size limit simply shuts-off all the rambling and bickering over the 400 footnotes-per-page which empowered the rambling text. -Wikid77 (talk) 05:25, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Lessons learned for autofixing cites
I have been hand-editing dozens of semi-major pages, to fix the cite-parameter errors and copy-edit text, while discussions continue about the types of wp:autofixing cites, to use in the wp:CS1 Lua-based templates. I still think autofixing is the best long-term solution to handle most of the common typos in cites. However, there have been some revelations:
 * Numerous pages with cite errors have been "semi-major" articles viewed 100x-3,000x per day, read far more times than first imagined.
 * Hundreds of cite errors are caused by Bots, when unable to correct duplicate parameters (replaced as "DUPLICATE_last1=" or such) and inserting invalid "unused_data=" to contain extra text in a cite.
 * Autofixing of cites would not correct hundreds of cases, such as the invalid parameters inserted by Bots which find duplicate parameter names.

Hence, the main priority (now) has been to hand-fix the hundreds of semi-major articles, while noting them as examples where autofixing could have been effective. To my shock (or "horror"), I discovered how thousands of pages with cite errors were not minor, rare pages viewed only a few times per day, but instead, numerous pages were viewed 50-100x or more per day, with many read 1,000-4,000 times per day. I think I had 2 major misconceptions:
 * Thinking of cites in "average pages" where, instead, only the higher-view pages typically have enough cites to incur cite typos.
 * Excessive optimism that "surely people fix major pages during a year?" (no), where the reality is that many pages read 100x or 1,000x per day are left unfixed all year.

At first, I was saddened to realize "almost no one corrects semi-major pages" but instead, the good news is:    "Because almost no one edits the semi-major pages,    then once fixed, those pages stay fixed for months/years." The problem had been, with the mindset to look for cite errors and count how many months/years they sat unfixed, I had overlooked the impact of the opposite effect: Once a semi-major article has been fixed (copy-edited) for better quality, then it often remains clean for several months or years. If copy-edit backlog drives focused mainly on the high-pageview articles, then the core, wp:VITAL pages could be fixed and remain clean for months/years into the future. The main problem has been an "inverse 90/10 Rule" where people have spread their fix-it efforts across the ocean of all pages, where instead, if some people focused primarily on the top 10% (as fixing 440,000 semi-major pages), then the bulk of high-view pages would appear clean for years, while the lesser pages (viewed 20x-500x less) could then be improved as next in priority. Many people have been "sweeping and polishing" the dark corners, while numerous high-traffic areas with glaring problems were overlooked. -Wikid77 20:14, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Interesting insights, Wikid77. Maybe you should share your ideas to WP:Village pump where more people would see them. Liz  Read! Talk! 23:31, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, this is just an informal note, for discussion. When Jimbo has time, he has offered some advice as in the past, to beware "too small a sample" or use the "12-month-trailing average" when trying to generalize the trends about WP pages. In this case I checked a whole year of data, but I should have scanned hundreds of pages and realized how numerous pages with wp:CS1 cite errors are read 100x or more times per day. -Wikid77 20:11, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Bots edit-warring to insert invalid cite parameters
It has taken me a while to confirm a pattern, but some of the cite-fixit Bots are actively edit-warring about the cite parameters, where perhaps the control settings can be selected to misjudge valid parameters and re-edit them to store invalid "DUPLICATE_title=" after a person fixes the "title=", depending on "archiveurl=" settings or other related parameters (see User:Citation_bot in history: view history). By comparison, the tactics of wp:autofixing cites do not "edit" the page, but merely alter the display of cite data, and could not possibly edit-war with people changing cite templates. This is a real nightmare, because it is difficult to reduce the cite backlog when cite-Bots are actively edit-warring over the hundreds of previously hand-fixed cites. Update: The bot incorrectly inserting "DUPLICATE_title=" was reported at User_talk:Citation_bot on 31 March. -Wikid77 20:11, 29 March; 14:10, 31 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Formerly, the invalid parameter "unused_data=" had been inserted by Bots, as left in over 300 pages during 2013, but most of those have been hand-fixed. Another Bot-generated problem was "isbn status= invalid...check values" but that seems to no longer be added. Another area of Bot-generated problems is dates with lead "0" as "07 May" in perhaps 50,000 pages, but I think those should be accepted as valid, although awkward, format. -Wikid77 15:17, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Examples of million-view cite messages
(Rewrote section) Although many high-view pages have contained some cite error messages over the past year, it has been rare to find a page viewed 1 million times with a red-error message. One million pageviews would average 2,740/day for 365 days a year. On 13 March 2014, the page "Vladimir Putin" was fixed to remove a cite error viewed in over 300,000 pageviews for invalid "DUPLICATE_pages" added by Bot on 5 March. One article was viewed over 5 million times, during the past year, but the cite error message was activated (and fixed) after only 1 day of viewing: Once Upon a Time (TV series) – had 6.7 million pageviews in 2013 That TV series had the error " near footnote 35-41, hidden all year in the References section, viewed 10,000 to 50,000 times per day, but the page was updated over 1,100 times during the period, and nobody fixed the cite as "subject=" until a red-error message was displayed. Page "Theta" had shown "" for 5 months (since [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Theta&oldid=583684406 rev. Nov 2013]), but the cite error was left during 151,000 pageviews. Other pages also exemplify the problem: a page can be viewed 5 million thousands of times, while updated many times, but a red-error message does not cause readers to fix the error, so don't show it. -Wikid77 (talk) 14:10, 31 March 2014, 04:40, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
 * How hard would it be to produce a list of these in an automated way, updated once a day or once a week? "Most popular pages with cite error messages" - so people who are good at this sort of thing can focus their efforts on fixing them?--Jimbo Wales (talk) 20:33, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I think the cite-gnome users are fixing pages now ASAP (~100/day), and I requested "wt:CS1" to focus on major pages, such as in top wp:5000. More below. -Wikid77 11:26, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Seems to me to be a great idea, Jimbo. Invertzoo (talk) 00:15, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I think I might be really good at fixing, manually, a situation like that b/c I could never look at any article, no matter how big or small, and click-away knowing I'd left one single red cite error message in the References section. But I don't want to get involved in any kind of official operation or anything, especially if admins are involved! In fact, I really hesitated about posting this here but finally did, b/c I couldn't imagine leaving a page in that condition and not try to fix it. But I don't want to be involved with anything that goes near articles where there are lots of really aggressive editors and admins swirling about, especially the ones who think they own the article(S) or that being uncivil consists of defending yourself against their abuses of bureaucratic process. J Danek 00 7 Talk 08:30, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
 * This seems like a job for Database reports.
 * —Wavelength (talk) 00:41, 1 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Hand-fixing cite backlog within 20 days: (helpers are fixing pages faster) I had forgotten how hand-editing can be faster than upgrading mega-templates which require many weeks/months to reformat the 2.2 million related pages (due to the "wp:Page reformat crisis"), so even though it might require a whole month of hand-fixing cites, the backlog of unknown/misspelled cite parameters should be cleared by mid-April 2014. See category: &bull; Category:Pages_with_citations_using_unsupported_parameters (pages: 0) I recently fixed cite errors in "Pluto" and "New York City" plus many semi-major pages. Once the backlog from last year is smaller, it will be easier for cite-gnome users to spot major pages in the category, to have those cite errors corrected sooner. Thanks to many helpers, this cite backlog is being cleared at 150-200 pages per day. -Wikid77 11:26, 1 April, 10:40, 2 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Steady hand-fixing of cite errors: Much progress is being made in removing the glaring red-error messages for invalid wp:CS1 cite parameters (displayed since March last year), by hand-fixing the related pages. Currently, the backlog count is down to 2,665 articles (from 3,400 in March 2014) which have misspelled/unknown cite parameters. Meanwhile, as red errors are being fixed, some people are also adjusting other cite data, or adding new cites when deadlinks have been found, so this is not just total "busy work" to hand-fix simple problems which autofixing would handle. Update: As of 6-8 April, the cite-gnomes have reduced the backlog by ~1,600 pages (46%) since March, down to only 1,890 pages, as now easier to find most high-view articles among the 10 sections of pages in the category:    &bull; [//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Pages_with_citations_using_unsupported_parameters?from=Sa Category:Pages_with_citations_using_unsupported_parameters?from=Sa] Many pages are still added, each day, with more invalid cite parameters, and so the overall reduction also offsets the daily additions of other pages. -Wikid77 09:14, 4 April 2014, 17:29, 6 April 2014, 15:17, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Sigh. Wikid, you know I would help if I could. All the best, Rich Farmbrough, 03:50, 7 April 2014 (UTC).


 * Thanks, Rich, but you already accomplished so much with the fast cite_web_quick template, showing how simple cites could be formatted 10x faster, and now the Lua-based wp:CS1 cites today run ~13x faster. -Wikid77 15:17, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
 * OTOH, this thread is probably read by hundreds of editors. I have just now fixed a dozen of these, and I pledge to have done 100 by the end of the business day. 25 more editors to follow, and the backlog is gone in a day. --Pgallert (talk) 09:08, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Great, and hand-fixing also allows adjustments to punctuation or fixing other issues in each page. -Wikid77 15:17, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

I hate it here too sometimes...
How the hell can you ever effect change when you have people with narrow and outdated views who will do anything to protect their little fiefdoms? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Village_pump_(technical)#Thumbnail_Preferences_-_max_300px I went through all that effort to realize all I achieved was a potential location to start the discussion all over again and still no sense of the process. Saffron Blaze (talk) 17:39, 1 April 2014 (UTC) 17:39, 1 April 2014 (UTC)


 * It looks to me like a bunch of people explaining why they don't agree with you and you responding by being an asshole. You might hate it here a bit less if you treated others with more respect. (I am so looking forward to the reply to this. I am going to make some popcorn to eat while I enjoy the show.) --Guy Macon (talk) 22:38, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I think you just proved my point. Thanks. Saffron Blaze (talk) 00:34, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
 * ...and now you just proved Guy's point. Thank you.--Mark Miller (talk) 00:38, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Saffron Blaze, welcome to Wikipedia, where the goal is to wear you down until you give up and go away because There are no rules. USchick (talk) 04:15, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Maybe it's just me, but I don't see
 * "I would appreciate people stop talking out of their arse"
 * "your inability to understand the issue"
 * "another patronizing response"
 * "all people ever do is lecture about things they don't even understand"
 * "thanks for another useless lecture that serves nothing other than to bolster your own ego"
 * and
 * "spouting wiki-isms and nonsense"
 * as being an effective method for discussing technical issues, and I don't see politely asking someone to stop bevaving that way as "wearing them down until they give up and go away". I'm just saying. --Guy Macon (talk) 05:27, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
 * 1st world problems. USchick (talk) 06:45, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Notwithstanding the fact being a bully or obstinate on WP is actually more effective than other approaches, how would responding politely prevented off topic and mis-informed responses like this?
 * "Thumbnails are not ment to act as full size images; they are 'thumbnails' after all." (completely missed the point of the question, patronizing)
 * "our non-free content policy, which uses low-resolution non-free images, would not allow for images to be displaed at much larger sizes" (implementation would not affect NFC)
 * "You are applying what is typical for you and desiring to push it onto everyone viewing a particular article" (absolutely not what was being asked, as the change would only affect user preferences)
 * "I'm not sure I understand the problem here: On QHD/4K Monitors you would have to scale up the text anyway" (no one was asking anything about text)
 * "you're going to be asking for larger NFC images to be used, and that will not fly" (no, but who died and made him god of NFC?)
 * I was not alone in my assessment of the responses:
 * "...you were clearly talking out of your a**. (another user's assessment of the situation)
 * "I do not find the NFCC argument compelling in the slightest" (yet the user interjected ad naseum this NFC concern)
 * "I'd say you were trolling" (Another user's assessment of the responses)
 * Cherry pick some more sentences to counter those I have placed here. Tell me they are out of context. Do all the things that people do here on WP to drive people away. Attack the person not the problem... and my apparent lack of courtesy is not the problem. Saffron Blaze (talk) 18:11, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
 * You have all of these conflicts with all of these people. Have you ever stopped to consider what the common factor is? Perhaps it's you? I'm just saying. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:36, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I have already stated what the common factor is. With those buttered fingers of yours it must have slipped your grasp. Now go eat some more popcorn. Saffron Blaze (talk) 15:59, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
 * "A soft answer turneth away wrath: but grievous words stir up anger." (Proverbs 15:1). JohnCD (talk) 16:13, 3 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Things have gotten a bit hidebound over the past few years. Jimmy mentioned something about using his founder position to help move policies along back in late 2012, but nothing's come of it yet. -- SB_Johnny &#124; talk✌ 00:26, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, someone from the WMF filed a request on Bugzilla for a change to the image size settings. That's a start. Saffron Blaze (talk) 15:36, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
 * First round = fail. The proposal was summarily executed by the same person that killed it the last several times this has been requested. Odd to see a member of the WMF dismissed the way he was. Saffron Blaze (talk) 04:44, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Have to agree that it is frustrating that the person who didn't understand the problem last time, is allowed to demonstrate they still don't understand the problem. Perhaps some engagement with the community would be better rather than re-confirming an unwillingness to explore solutions. The excuses given are not reasons, as they rely on continuing to do stupid things (like having loads of image size variants nobody uses). It is like asking if we can have pizza for tea tonight and being told no because the oven is not on. Well turn the oven on. It would be very interesting to see stats on what sizes have actually been chosen by users -- I bet most people who change the default pick the max. -- Colin°Talk 17:18, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Perhaps should ask the Wiki SWeedon how they managed to get done what not even the WMF can. That said, the adoption of 360px is but a band-aid in this era of 4K and retina displays. Saffron Blaze (talk) 22:40, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
 * "So I would love to bring it to wikitech-l if I knew what that was."
 * http://www.google.com/?q=wikitech-l
 * Is that the best you can do, tell us to GOOGLE it?
 * http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikitech-l/
 * Have I found the right place? Where is the continuing discussion where Saffron Blaze gets the answers they deserve, but still have not yet gotten? What is the subject of the thread so I can use my browser's search to find it? You mean to tell me that you guys are still using this primitive system to do real work and haven't upgraded it to "Flow" yet? Wbm1058 (talk) 16:29, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, to be fair, I could have Googled it and did when it was pointed out the info was there. Now I have to register for another thing and hope someone listens... and understands. Saffron Blaze (talk) 02:31, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Major changes might require wp:RfC with 6 months
To get consensus for improving the MediaWiki software, it might need a formal wp:RfC (perhaps for 2-3 months), plus more months of planning for changes. Currently, we have the new 2-font (Frankenfonts) display in the Vector skin (&useskin=vector), but those same developers might be interested in doing something which people wanted to see instead. There has been little interest in fixing the trivial wp:edit-conflicts which deter a classroom of 20 students from all expanding the same page, even though minor changes to the MediaWiki diff3.c utility could improve the auto-merge of edit-conflicts, but if more people agreed in an RfC, then perhaps some major improvements could be made. -Wikid77 (talk) 12:11, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
 * The class of Wikipedia users who have the skills and experience to address the above problem do not need wikilinks explaining what "edit conflict" and "Mediawiki" mean, but we do need an explanation of what these vaguely defined "minor changes" are and a link showing where you have previously requested the software changes and not received a satisfactory response that requires intervention by Jimbo. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:39, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Oh, I get it. It is alright to tell someone "to stop spouting wikiisms" just not as bluntly, so as they might miss you are actually being patronizing. Saffron Blaze (talk) 17:00, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
 * This troll was clearly compiled with inferior tools. My guess is that you used Visual Troll++, or possibly TurboTroll 2000.
 * These first generation tools are quite limited, and there is a severe garbage-collection-related performance hit when you try optimizing the output of VT++ for flaming or insults.
 * I suggest that you try the latest version of GTC; the Gnu Troller Collection. It is *the* standard when it comes to creating Trolls. It is also Open Source, reentrant, and is fully compliant with the Triple Troll, Troll-On-Troll and TrollChow protocols. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:41, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Pointing our hypocrisy is not trolling. Although you twice reverting attempts to hat the more childish aspects of this discussion certainly could be. Saffron Blaze (talk) 18:20, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Every day, a troll goes hungry. These are not trolls in some third-world country, but right here at home.  The growing rate of trolls is alarming.  In the United States alone, the number of hungry trolls is expanding at a rate of 1 troll for every 15 Nigerian spam emails.
 * For example, take little Saffron here. On the comments section of his local blog, he does not even gain enough responses to fill an entire Tweet on Twitter.  He has been forced to go into Yahoo! chat rooms and pose as an underage girl just for enough troll food to last the night.
 * Sponsoring a troll is easy. For the cost of sending just one flame or other response, your contribution (along with others) will keep one troll fed for a month. If you include your email address, you can get weekly or even daily letters from your troll. Think of what one post from you could mean to a hungry troll.
 * Please. Feed a troll today. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:24, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Back on topic (and to let the troll go hungry), the only thing I can possibly see of an entire classroom getting together to improve the encyclopedia without running into edit conflicts every three seconds is to make something like Google Docs - live, group editing. The new VisualEditor might be able to get the job done. Once the class is finished, the teacher can hit publish and everyone's happy - except for the kid in the corner who didn't get to contribute.


 * But a lot of people will probably ask; "Why don't we just use Google Docs and then copy n paste the code into the article?" K6ka (talk &#124; contribs) 01:59, 5 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks for bringing the discussion back on track. Another method comes to mind; if, as the OP claims, there is some sort of change to the Wikimedia software that fixes the problem of edit conflicts, the teacher could install the Wikimedia software locally with the modification. I can't help wishing that there was some hint about exactly what this modification is.


 * Actually, that might be a good idea whether or not there is such a mod. Imagine a preconfigured copy of Wikipedia with no articles but a full set of read-only policy and help pages and the main page replaced with easy-to-follow instructions for creating an article or copying an article from Wikipedia and modifying it, along with a template similar to Template:In use to let people on Wikipedia know what the teacher is doing. If this mini-Wikipedia was a one-click install with no configuration needed, it could be a big help to the teachers. --Guy Macon (talk) 08:30, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, using a Wikipedia-with-no-articles, then several students might wonder why all wikilinks in their new page show as redlinks, and why that was required when creating their expanded page for use in Wikipedia. Anyway, the "minor changes" to reduce wp:edit-conflicts would be made inside diff3.c (see recent source code: http://ftp.cc.uoc.gr/mirrors/OpenBSD/src/usr.bin/rcs/diff3.c). The tactic, for reduced edit-conflicts, would be to reduce the separation of an edit-conflict to "0" intervening lines, rather than require the separation to be at least 1 line, or " + 1 <", and instead just be "<" to avoid a simple edit-conflict. The more people study diff3.c, then the more the fixes could be understood. -Wikid77 (talk) 15:54, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Better sockpuppet detection
Jimbo's comment "I would strongly support research and experimentation in this area" ABOVE got me thinking. Right now, I believe that someone with the CU right can look at IP addresses and email addresses (and of course all of the person's contributions, just like the rest of us) I am probably more capable than most sockmasters, but I am pretty sure that I could create a sockpuppet that is undetectable. I can buy access to a botnet with a thousand nodes all over the world for less than $50 if I can live with 56K or DSL speeds See http://it.slashdot.org/story/11/09/06/1944233/rent-your-own-botnet and http://www.trendmicro.com/cloud-content/us/pdfs/security-intelligence/white-papers/wp-russian-underground-101.pdf

Wikipedia could get a lot more sophisticated with our sockpuppet detection. Consider https://panopticlick.eff.org/browser-uniqueness.pdf and https://panopticlick.eff.org/ for example. I am leaking a lot more information than just my IP address. According to panopticlic, I am currently leaking 12.42 bits of identifying information, and one in 5,470 browsers have the same fingerprint as me. Another possibility is automated textual analysis. It would catch the fact that I and my sockpuppet both occasionally lapse into UK spelling and vocabulary, or that i use certain uncommon words a lot.

The one thing I lack is motivation. I cannot think of a single reason why i might want to have a sockpuppet. But then again, that's what I would say if I had a dozen of them :) --Guy Macon (talk) 22:27, 5 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Checkusers cannot see Email currently. They see the IP, the User account if applicable, the operating system and the web browser and I think that's it. If Email address were added, it would make the checkuser tool a lot more specific and useful. If they added the PC MAC address it would be virtually indisputable. Now its mostly assumption and guesswork by the checkusers and the tool is highly prone to false positives (how many people use Mozilla Firefox and Windows 8 to edit on a daily basis from the Verizon network). 172.56.2.75 (talk) 22:37, 5 April 2014 (UTC)


 * The MAC address is on the Ethernet layer below TCP/IP an only identifies your NIC to the local network segment. MAC addresses are not included in TCP/IP packets passed upstream through intermediate routers.


 * https://panopticlick.eff.org/browser-uniqueness.pdf details a lot more that CUs could examine besides just the operating system and the web browser. I think we should do more research on this. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:49, 5 April 2014 (UTC)


 * "12.42 bits" of data? Really? Ahem... --Demiurge1000 (talk) 23:02, 5 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Yes, fractional bits are a thing (at least in some narrow statistical contexts). Andy Dingley (talk) 23:40, 5 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Example: Alice's browser gives me information about her computer, but one out of eight computers gives me the same information, so her browser leaks 3 bits of identifying information. Bob's browser gives me information about his computer, but one out of sixteen computers gives me the same information, so his browser leaks 4 bits of identifying information. One out of twelve computers gives me the same information as Eve's computer. How many bits is that? --Guy Macon (talk) 02:56, 6 April 2014 (UTC)


 * The purpose of such research should only be to see what Wikipedia can do to prevent such data collection. For example, my understanding is that sites need to request system fonts information.  Which is a serious privacy loophole that shouldn't exist in the first place.  But Wikipedia should not be trying to collect that data, not on its own behalf and not on behalf of third parties overseeing the connection.  What Wikimedia developers could be doing would be leading teams of users in designing an extensive suite of totally free fonts to cover all the familiar applications, so that users could enable only these free fonts and display anything, and then all browsers would have the same resources and the "bits" from that would go to zero.  (Plus a lot fewer headaches for things like the Vector skin) Wnt (talk) 00:35, 6 April 2014 (UTC)


 * The three most common methods of obtaining system font information are JavaScript/AJAX, Flash applet, and Java applet. See http://www.lalit.org/lab/javascript-css-font-detect/ for one of the most often used JavaScript methods. All three should be disabled if you care about privacy; it makes little sense to allow a website to run code on your local machine and then complain because that code does what code normally does.


 * As for whether Wikipedia should collect any sort of signature data, we already collect IP addresses and have a strict policy that only certain trusted users (Checkuser user right, which most admins do not have) can access the information. The same would be true of any browser signature information. This would actually slightly increase privacy. Right now, if a sockpuppet investigation concludes through checkuser that I am also sockpuppet X, you know that the two of us have the same IP address. If the checkusers had a wider variety of methods, you wouldn't know for sure which method linked the two accounts. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:09, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Oh, the irony. It doesn't matter what technical measures you take to try and hide the connections, it will always be relatively easy to spot non-obvious socks who are trying to make long terms edits the project as notionally 'innocent' users, without using any technical jiggery pokery (although it can provide confirmation). All you need to do is just need to spend the small amount of time it takes to compare account creation dates, relative experience, interests & personality traits. The reason why it's never been easier for banned users to return to Wikipedia and just carry on editting the same way they did before, is because admins like Guy don't have the wit or the drive to do this most basic of things, even when the evidence is laid out before them on a plate. Button mashing and dishing out blocks based on the results, is just about all they can manage. Hence his desire for even more shiny buttons. One of the most active editors on Wikipedia right now, is a sock of a banned user, for this very reason. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Norchtuk (talk • contribs) 18:37, 6 April 2014 (UTC)


 * First, I am not an administrator. I don't believe that any WP:DRN volunteer will ever become an admin, because getting involved in any sort of dispute resolution will cause you to collect enemies. This would be true even if you were perfect, and it applies triple if you make a mistake in judgement, which we all do at times. To become an admin, keep your head dowm, offend nobody, and create lots of articles. Once you have demonstrated that you have zero experience doing the kind of things admins do, your RfA will sail through.


 * Second, I have a fairly good history of carefully analyzing edit histories and creating timelines with dates and diffs. You really need to be able to do this to be successful at dispute resolution. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:09, 6 April 2014 (UTC)


 * I wonder what made me think you were an admin then. Maybe it was the attitude with which greeted the information, or your complete failure to even figure out why you were being presented with it. Still, as you said, you're not an admin, so sadly in Wikiland that largely lets you off the hook, as far as responsibility for not doing the right thing goes. But if you have the experience you claim, for some reason you completely failed to apply it to this case. Funnily enough though, the admin who's turned up to comment below is one of the ones who ignored it. He had quite different reasons for overlooking it though, which have absolutely nothing to do technical evidence, or the lack thereof. It's frankly hilarious to see him talking about requiring editors to disclose their identity in this context. The banned editor in question is so desperate to edit as a sock, I wouldn't put it past him to do whatever would be necessary to defeat his idea of non-private accounts. And he would do so, because it's clearly worth it when they can't be bothered to look at anything else but technical evidence, no matter how convincing or obvious. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Norchtuk (talk • contribs) 21:29, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Trollometer 0   1    2    3    4    5    6    7    8    9    10  ___________________________________________________  |    |    |    |    |    |    |    |    |    |    |  ---         ^         |  Sorry, try a little harder next time. Thanks for playing! --Guy Macon (talk) 00:48, 7 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Yes, that's the sort of immature response that made me assume you were an admin the first time around. Maybe you should trade in your trollometer for a sock-detector, then maybe you might be able to actuall help the project, instead of just using it to make yourself look like a fool (which you're going to look like once the sock I'm talking about is eventually exposed).  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Norchtuk (talk • contribs) 11:45, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

The simplest solution would be to ditch this misguided notion that people should be able to perform acts in public while hiding their identity. That's not "privacy" under any plain definition of the term. Privacy is the right to perform private acts in private places, not public acts in public places.

If that's not possible, it would be trivially easy to put additional, automatic, sockpuppet blocks in place that most sockpuppeteers would not be able to defeat. We certainly have a cadre of technically savvy sockpuppeteers that could defeat cookie and browser signature based solutions, but, like our editors, most of our sockpuppeteers are relatively clueless when it comes to precisely how a browser works.&mdash;Kww(talk) 19:41, 6 April 2014 (UTC)


 * I believe that the correct word is "anonymity", and it is very desirable. --Guy Macon (talk) 01:15, 7 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Only for people that do not take responsibility for their actions.&mdash;Kww(talk) 01:37, 7 April 2014 (UTC)


 * So you think that Chinese dissidents, battered women trying to avoid being murdered by their abusers and people in Witness protection programs should all "take responsibility for their actions"? Not everyone has a government that allows them to freely edit Wikipedia -- freedom that you might not have yourself if Thomas Paine had been forced to "take responsibility for his actions" instead of publishing Common Sense anonymously. --Guy Macon (talk) 02:10, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't think that Wikipedia is an agent of social reform and dissent. Certainly there are people that should not edit Wikipedia. The thin guise of anonymity that we provide is enough to make fighting socks a pain, but nowhere near sufficient to make it safe for such people to edit. It contributes to an unpleasant environment without returning any actual benefit, unless you consider an illusion of safety to somehow be a benefit.&mdash;Kww(talk) 02:28, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
 * You talk of "people taking responsibility" if their real life identities are disclosed. Sure they might. But the question is why. Most people would "take responsibility" not to make them look good IRL but instead not to make them look bad; and there is a significant difference. I would be quite afraid of real life repercussions from editing, especially if I was, say, an admin or a person in positions of power who has made enemies through blocking socks and vandals. So the real motivation behind "taking responsibility" when your real name is shown is fear. You can't hold a loaded gun to everybody's head and call it security.


 * What would you or I gain if we could find out anyone's identity through Wikipedia? More importantly, what could the trolls and vandals gain? Now we aren't just playing around in our own little site anymore. With the disclosure of real world identities we find ourselves in the real world, and real world actions can have real world consequences. At emergency@wikimedia.org, we have a place to report real life threats of violence: bomb threats, death threats, etc. Now what if these people could find out who you are? With little ease, through Facebook or a social site, they could find out all about you, including where you live. Then those threats don't seem so harmless anymore, do they?  Konveyor   Belt  04:09, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Anonymity is important for more than just those who do bad stuff. There's a reason I don't use my real name here: I don't want everyone else filtering my edits through "Oh, he's so-and-so, he won't know anything". I don't know everyone else's reasoning, but dissidents and unfiltering are two very plausible things that come to mind, not to mention how people are generally more frank when disconnected from their true identity. Supernerd11 :D Firemind ^_^ Pokedex 02:26, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

If people were held responsible for their actions on Wikipedia, Kww wouldn't still be an admin. It takes a special brand of irresponsibility to deliberately look the other way when you're given hard evidence that an editor with thousands of edits on the project, is infact a sock puppet of a banned user.

P.S. The 'unconstructive' edit filter is being triggered when I try and expand on the above post and explain his apparent motivation for protecting a banned editor - perhaps it's been tampered with it to ensure the truth never gets out? Wouldn't surprise me one bit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Norchtuk (talk • contribs) 11:52, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes. Yes, the edit filter has been tampered with to ensure that the truth never gets out. You've found us out. Herostratus (talk) 00:50, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Actually, it wasn't tampering. It just took a while for the WMF software developers to get the expression  to work properly.&mdash;Kww(talk) 01:25, 9 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Regarding a troll who hijacks a technical discussion about detecting sockpuppets, Wikibird says:

Responding just encourages them! \            >')             ( \              ^^`


 * I hope this helps... --Guy Macon (talk) 05:19, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Re "I hate it here section" and editors leaving, in response to your comments there
Interesting I would find this section at the top of your page, upon coming here for the first time in a long while. I've been around one hell of a long time and have contributed massive amounts to Wikipedia, and remember the days when AGF and NPA were not used to inflict AGF and NPA, but when people actually sought to talk to each other and reconcile differences; I'm the subject of something very much like a witchhunt or kangaroo court right now, and that I do not write in bullet-form or simplistic sentences is being used as a reason to discuss ejecting me from Wikipedia altogether.

Even though I have begun to bullet point and paragraph my posts,as demanded by BHG there who clearly hasn't looked at my last week's posts/activity, I am still getting derisive retorts in place of discussion and still being accused of TLDR and "walls of text" (which to me as an older, widely read person, is insulting and really is "La-la, I don't hear you" as a reason to ignore what I am saying and just attack me, and now tub-thump to toss me out altogether). BearBAITing is the nature of ANI in general, and contrarian and "hit the gong button" mentality is rife there, as is "dogpiling"........the pretense of wikiquette has become the overriding agenda over content, guidelines are being ignored and abused, the truth stood on its head with me being accused of things being done to me, and accuracy is suffering, and that "toxic environment" mentioned above is thriving and festering on ANI and elsewhere. Of course I'm getting blamed for it by the very people who have been resistant to open discussion and have tried to block my actions and ideas at every turn. Skookum1 (talk)

The one-sidedness and the "if he speaks again he will be blocked" gist of comments there mean that every time I defend myself against unfair or "stilted" points, I am at risk of never being able to speak again. The topics at hands are areas in which I have local expertise in droves, and am respected for as such; the disputes are coming from people who don't know the topics, and aver from reading what I have to say because they don't like "walls of text" and will TLDR even something that is less than 250 words. Is Wikipedia to turn into a place run by semi-literates not capable of doing research or of reading extended text? Skookum1 (talk)

And re that ANI, I know bullying when I see it and this place is rife with it, and ANI and other "consensus discussions" are its main organs of trial, punishment and execution. If speaking up in my own defence is held against me, as some there have indicated, I will not be able to write you here again.....and since I don't get paid for my writing here, that may wind up being a good thing for me, as I have been largely penniless throughout my Wikipedia years...often because my time is taken up working on it, or dealing with procedures that are only necessary because of AGF attitudes towards my areas of knowledge and geographic origin by people who have little of the same themselves.Skookum1 (talk)

Despite the ongoing, and now officially-manifested, harassment and the one-sided show trial nature of "the accused is not allowed to speak in his defence), I continue to work on articles, RMs and try to engage in guideline discussions where I am being snubbed by my accuser and insulted by a persistently disruptive editor....."I can hear the sound of axes grinding" for a while now, long before this ANI began, and it's partisan in the extreme and coming from people who have ignored major guidelines while writing their own bad ones, and who have persistently resisted and sought to shut down RMs and more about topics they don't really know anything about, just because it's me who nominated them.  I've been winning 95% of them, though, because not everyone is so rabidly in attack/oppose mode.....and I talk guidelines and facts, not nonsensical wikilawyering on picayune interpretations of only one guideline. Some key ones have failed, but those were not due to the guidelines or facts, which the closer would not read, but only from hostility towards my writing style and their own lack of knowledge of the titles/topics/guidelines at question.Skookum1 (talk)

Being told I should use Twitter as a model for my posts was.......degrading, but typical of these latter times when attentions and thought-processes have been seriously affect by the constraints and effects of technology on human culture and brain-matter....and yes, sir, the world is going to hell in a bushelbasket....many people I know have left Wikipedia and will not return because of matters such as all described......I have stuck it out because I believe in the importance of the overall project and of the topics that I have written copiously on, in many many areas......there are those who have left in disgust at how things are done in the wiki-backrooms, and those who are thrown out. Wikipedia is NOTCENSORED, but it seems I'm about to be, and forbidden to return....you're welcome to review my edit history and articles created etc as to exactly how much I've done and about what..... Skookum1 (talk) 06:46, 6 April 2014 (UTC)


 * And just to underscore about the "toxic environment", I have quite a number of supporters, even begrudging ones due to my amount of knowledge, contributions and dedication, but they are unwilling to come by ANI as they don't like what goes on there and the type of the persecutory and contrarian attitudes that infest the place by its very nature; similarly there seem to be people who patrol RM and CfD listings looking for things, or other editors, to oppose.....


 * In spite of being told to shut up speaking in my own defence "or else", I had the temerity to reply to unfair and distorted comments last night (til 3:15 am my time, which is Koh Samui, Thailand), which refer to specific issues and topics/titles that are where all this has come out of. I'd rather be able to point you to certain RMs still open and some that are now closed unsatisfactorily, but my time here may be short as the boom may fall on me at any minute because of my refusal to submit as I'm told I am supposed to by shutting up in my own defence; I have some things to get done before that happens.  If I am kicked out by these proceedings, your encyclopedia has lost one of its most dedicated and productive, nay prodigious, editors who was hounded out by the same elements who are why many other editors have left, and who are why many editors avoid ANI and RM etc.....in that link there are details of how the host of RMs just passed (mostly) came into being, in response to an ill-informed and seemingly deliberate change of a category name I was known to have strong values/issues about on the premise of a "FOO people" dispute; read about it in that link; it is interconnected with teh "FOO people" problem and the insistence of some who maintain that Canadian English usages are to be discounted vs global usages, even though the former in all cases outnumber the rest 10:1 or more, and who also applied "+ people" across thousands of articles he now claims it is disruptive to discuss individually, demanding a discussion he does nothing but stonewall at. Skookum1 (talk)


 * Suffice to say the original creator of the category and article in question, who is himself indigenous, User:OldManRivers, who is Skwxwu7mesh and the principal author of the pages on both his peoples, one being at Kwakwaka'wakw, the other being now Squamish people (very ambiguously given the town of Squamish which is the PRIMARYTOPIC whether or not my RM to address that reality was refused). OldManRivers is among those who have left wikipedia, I won't repeat his comments about the people and attitudes he encountered here.....they're very explicit NPAs.Skookum1 (talk) 07:50, 6 April 2014 (UTC)


 * I know nothing about you or the incident but...surely you understand that brevity keeps the reader's focus and if your responses simply take up too much space.......people will tend to believe it to be a diversionary tactic. Also...we, as editors are not all equal. Some have great intelligence and very high IQs while others have a greater learning curve to get over. We have to have patience with everyone and we cannot look down on what we may perceive to be less than suitable suggestions. I actually am a tad surprised that an editor, such as your self, would actually be degraded by a suggestion to use Twitter as a model for your posts. Uhm...they were suggesting smaller responses. And I can see why. You have to separate your encyclopedic writing from your general discussion writing. Come on now....you have to admit, not everyone can handle huge responses or replies. Your meaning gets lost to others in all the text. And many people will simply walk away and pay no attention. Trust me....I almost did myself.--Mark Miller (talk) 08:24, 6 April 2014 (UTC)


 * what's been going on is a partisan witchhunt/hounding and BAITing me into long responses is an old game from some of the arrogators in question, whose noses are out of joint because I've shown their mistakes and not-so-hidden agendas laid bare.....also persistent obstructionist and/or wiklawyering and often directly insulting behaviour at a multitude of needed and mandated RMs and a few related CfDs......and then some. In general, there are often complex details that need addressing, not glossing; I write as succinctly as possible, and even trimming that I still get complaints, as noted.  IMO if people incapable of comprehending materials they do not want to understand would not participate in votes about topics they know nothing about and are not willing to even try to learn to understand.  That many of these are conferred with the powers of an admin is shameful.Skookum1 (talk) 08:32, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Please don't take this the wrong way, but you may be your own worst enemy. Seriously. You are a Wikipedia editor, but you can't write in a succinct manner? You just did above. You may just be so used to a specific manner of writing. However, the discussion part of Wikipedia is a form of communication. If you cannot communicate well.....it really doesn't matter what you are saying. Please have more patience. Attempt brief responses like you just did so you do not give yourself undue weight in a discussion and are simply expressing only what is absolutely needed with each response. I think if you did that you would certainly be much better off than you feel right now. Believe it or not (and I know people either don't believe it or just don't like the idea) but we are a community. Part of being a community is, not just getting along but communicating in a manner that everyone can clearly understand. It isn't a policy, guideline or procedure you will see written down but...trust me, if you can't communicate well here...things can be tough all around.--Mark Miller (talk) 09:53, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Maybe get off his back and evaluate ideas rather than critiquing style. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 13:27, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
 * No, it is more important to point out how he is part of the problem and ignore the issues he brings forward. Saffron Blaze (talk) 16:45, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
 * In other words, presupposing that's not sarcasm which is what it might sound like, DON'T address the issues I raise and make me the issue instead....which is contrary to guidelines....charitably you might have been stating a parody of the "wikiquette before meaningful content and informed input" can of those who don't want to address issues, but only criticize those raising them. The problem is not me but you've clearly got your mind made up that it is.....and yourself don't care about the issues, or the guidelines I am trying to address in resolving them; or the wide support by all the closed RMs where my input was listened to, despite the persistent opposition of those who are only opposing to oppose; they are the problem, not me.  And your attitude, so succinctly but ironically put just now, sums up what is wrong with Wikipedia's culture of spite, masked as "wikiquette" but really aggressive, exclusionary and very very negative and persistently disruptive.Skookum1 (talk) 17:27, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
 * That indeed was sarcasm. I was simply pointing out that here, as well as elsewhere on WP, you are more likely to be demonized than actively engaged in a constructive way. Enormous effort is put forth in pointing out your flaws instead of getting to the root of the issue, which is the crux of the opening post on this page. Saffron Blaze (talk) 20:26, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
 * OK, thanks for the clarification; it's hard to tell tone of voice in ASCII as w all know; I'm so used to hearing that it's difficult to recognize as parody. North8000's quote of me below took me aback at first, because it was without the preceding phrase and I thought maybe I'd put "not" when I didn't mean to; as per the root of the issue, see my replies to him immediately below. I'm not just talking about that particular group of wiki-opponents (apparently "linguistics groupies" is among the things they claim is a personal attack, their own suggestion that I'm mentally unstable are persistent and much worse re AGF/NPA but never mind that, it's old news to me now) but also to teh whole tone/environment of ANI, which is a cesspool of negativity and seen a a place to be feared and avoided......because of the treatment of people that's dished out there and the habit of going "yup, he's guilty", "yup I think so too", "guilty as hell, can we lynch him now?" etc....Skookum1 (talk) 08:37, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Skoookum1, I think that your "when AGF and NPA were not used to inflict AGF and NPA" is a masterpiece at pointing out the nature of the largest problem. Let's fix it.  North8000  (talk) 13:49, 6 April 2014 (UTC)


 * As much fun as it is to play the victim card, the AN/I Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents is based on the documented personal attacks that Skookum1 has made against other editors. No one else *forces* an editor to make personal attacks, and this lack of civility is what adds to the toxic environment of Wikipedia that is driving editors away. -Uyvsdi (talk) 20:08, 7 April 2014 (UTC)Uyvsdi
 * I knew you'd show up, but whatever; your own inability to address AGF and NPA by Kwami and others shows up you ongoing hypocrisy, and your own many slights against me and ongoing obstructionism on RMs is amounting to disruptive and tendentious behaviour; your own lack of civility towards me, including the one-sidedness of your ANI/s citations without context as to what I was responding to, is more evidence of your impartiality and the use of witchhunting as a way to avoid discussing the issues I raise.Skookum1 (talk) 07:16, 8 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Been around a long time, seen a lot, and heard way too much and know how it was. I've been meaning to codify the "old consensus" concerning the titles and topics that provoked all this, but have had no time or energy; when I tried to raise it in WP:IPNA I was told by my principal accuser that there were more important things to do; indeed there were related guideline discussions going on that I, though obviously interested and informed and experienced in the wiki-field, was not invited to; and in some cases I was enacting long standing convention or raised issues relating  to remaining titles and categories that no one had sorted out - according to the structure and titling principles laid out in that now-wrecked consensus - and was pretty much told to bug off.  Since that time, resistance has mounted, NPA and AGF accusations thrown for detailing the history of who did what and criticizing misapplied guidelines and a certain miswritten guideline; other than harass me officially now, the campaign to oppose any of the RMs I have out there continues.  And it's always the same few people, and always the refusal to acknowledge guidelines, consensus, or view stats or googles.  It continues tonight: here and here with two of my opponents, both of whom told me to "get a life!" when pushing aside my efforts to address the various problems with the "FOO people" format; here they have abandoned their usual incantation NCL as if that's the only guideline that matters, and are trying a not-very-new tack regularly raised by another in their group, which we've heard tons of before: vague claims that the PRIMARYTOPIC is not discernible, without any effort whatsoever to prove that.  Here is my response to them and including my response to the other oppose vote, who raised the same vague claim/speculations.

This kind of repetitive, obstinate determination to preserve titles which have numerous problems by the same cadre, including my "assailant", is now so repetitive and predictable and far too numerous. In this case it's clear that they are trying to out-vote the very clear invocations of guidelines mandating the removal of the "people" disambiguation. This obstructionist and get-Skookum1 behaviour is so established and very very AGF in nature, also targeting an individual editor's activities, that it amounts to tendentious editing and is obviously disruptive in nature and intent. Others have observed this also in re similar posts by others of the NCL group on other RMs, the bulk of them now closed with the needless "people" tag reversed. But still they are not giving up, still they are not addressing the guidelines or the spirit of the deadlines, still they are targeting my activities by way of harassment. And who is it that's at the ANI for some pithy language because he's so frustrated at all the stonewalling and wheedling and obstructionism and taunts and outright insults? Yours truly.Skookum1 (talk) 15:33, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
 * you opened a lot of doors with your first post. I went through one open door....the issues you brought forth about your perceptions of how you are being treated. I purposely did not address your situation for one reason, I know nothing about it and have not been persuaded by your writing to look into it beyond a few small glances last night (or earlier this morning). You chose to discuss yourself. Don't do that if you don't want the replies to be about you. Look, you seem to be a really great contributor. there doesn't seem to be much doubt there. The issues you seem to have a difficult time with are when others give you criticism. However...clearly that was just the your venting and not really the crux of your issues.--Mark Miller (talk) 00:09, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
 * OK, the crux of the issues is that I'm being targeted by a harassment and derision campaign by a team of editors whose pet guideline they insist is LAW and HOLYWRIT, and who have been consistent in their derisions, and provocations, and presume to cry about AGF and NPA when it is their own words and actions that have been disruptive and constantly tendentious;


 * I necessarily made myself the subject here because of the hostile and partisan ANI-cum-witch-burning now underway, launched by one of that group, who singles me out for NPA and AGF while openly tolerating very explicit insults from her main colleague, even presuming to portray him as a victim at that ANI.


 * That's a short summary, the upshot is that there have been dozens of RMs that they have attempted to block, and some CfDs that have been the abysmal failures and "bad calls", with the most specious logics and without admitting to any other guideline which disputes their own; the dishonesty of some replies, including interpreting what I or others have said in distorted and/or reversed fashion, is part of the issue.


 * In trying to deal with the manifold illogics and false evidence and mis-quoted/abused guidelines, usually handy little one-liners with no substance behind them, and single-line misinterpretations of guidelines already ignored in the moves I'm now trying to correct.  But handy little one liners often involve more than one falsehood or misapprehension; it is not possible to one-liner back.  I have been in CfDs where I was made the target because of the necessary length and detailed nature required of proper, adequate replies, and was hounded in those same discussions personally for that, which buried the issues I had raised; if someone is TLDR and not willing to read or learn, they should not be voting or closing.Skookum1 (talk) 08:10, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

S n kookum, no one is reading your stuff because it is too long. You have already posted over 2000 words here and I have no clue of even your general topic. If you don't know how use a topic sentence followed by reasons and examples, try or maybe. At least break up your text into paragraphs so it looks like it has been organized in some way. —Neotarf (talk) 06:39, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
 * How 'bout I call you "Neofart" because you called me "Snookum" which is cute but clearly derisive; "skookum" means "strong, capable, reliable, trustworthy" btw.Skookum1 (talk) 08:34, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Now see.....this only goes to prove you aren't really trying. I mean....simply changing the "f" to a "d" would have been funnier and cuter. ;-)--Mark Miller (talk) 08:39, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
 * good point, but using that would no doubt have earned another report from Uyvsdi to her list of outrages by me at the ANI; not that comments here haven't already been used there, I really haven't been looking. I'm not allowed to speak there anyway, so...I spoke up against the topic ban and its inherent hypocrisy and probably my 150 or so words, if that there, will also be styled TLDR and "see, he's not stopping, time to ban him"......and the claim that the derisive used here was a "typo" is rather comical; the n and the k aren't next to each other......Skookum1 (talk) 06:08, 9 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Oh wasn't I doing that? Thought I was.....apparently I have to try even shorter paragraphs huh?  LOL, yeah, whatever.  I'm sorry you are having comprehension problems, clearly others here do not.  Perhaps you should try some remedial reading courses or take some gingko biloba extract to help you concentrate on passages you find difficult.


 * If you can't determine "reasons and examples" in my flow of text, which are there, then you have serious comprehension difficulties; I've already tried to simply very complex matters here; asking me to reduce them to Coles Notes form is just not viable. If you're interested, slow down and go back over them and piece together what I'm saying; others know I'm cogent and well-argued and are not intimidated by a mere 2,000 words.  My reply to Mark Miller just above, made in the same post, is 305 words long according to GoogleDoc's word counter.  Is that too long for you also?Skookum1 (talk) 08:10, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
 * My apologies for the typo; it has been corrected. But I see now, from the current ANI thread titled "Ongoing personal attacks by User:Skookum1", now spanning 8 days and more than 10,000 words, that writing skill is probably not the issue after all. —Neotarf (talk) 11:48, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Re that, the dishonesty of that RM in not addressing NPAs and AGFs against me, which I was responding to, alongside persistent disruptive "oppose" votes and the like, is the real issue; not my use of "colourful language"; in fact many of those alleged NPAs are not in fact legitimate NPAs, unlike Kwami saying I'm "ridiculous", "idiotic", "no one would accuse you of being rational" and more......the overarching issue here is the contrarian nature of the "discussion" process and the use of "consensus" to be disputatious and tendentious, rather than accept citations of guidelines and stats/searches as valid; the prevailing negativity and disruptive nature of such activities, including one-sided ANIs filed by someone guilty herself, on behalf also of others regularly being critical of an author instead of addressing issues they raise, is a major flaw in the Wikipedia "consensus" machinery, as is the ability of people not qualified to vote or close on a subject presuming to vote-bomb discussions so that closes will be counted on a quantitative, not qualitative basis.Skookum1 (talk) 07:32, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Just make it clear that tendentious and disruptive "oppose" votes and prevailing negativity and contrarian attitudes are not limited to the cadre of NCL aficionados, see here, here and here re ongoing or just-closed RMs Floydian sums up such oppositional activities here rather succinctly; Dicklyon, AjaxSmack, and Vegaswikian and JorisV are among the list of "habitual naysayers" on topics they really have no familiarity with; doubting and challenging the local expertise of an editor who's been here for eight and a half years is decidedly AGF, and also disruptive and tendentious; Both Vegaswikian and JorisV, like Kwami, used boilerplate copy-pastes across what seem like dozens of RMs, of the type that Floydian points out have "no evidence" and "no reasoning". That closes are happening "no consensus, not moved" as if such "votes" had any real value is another big problem of the RM system; only those qualified on a subject should be closing, not people only counting up votes and not even considering the facts presented; apparently stats may be TLDR too, and short one-liners without substance are taken at face value.Skookum1 (talk) 07:16, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Site ban proposal now "on"
I just saw this, proposed by Neofart above, who claims his patronizing "Snookum" was a typo (the k and the n really aren't next to each the other on a keyboard, are they?); I've been ignoring the ANI as it doesn't want me to defend myself anyway, now a site ban is proposed or an indefinite block? Why, because I defend myself against attacks and ongoing disruptive and tendentious "votes" on RMs, and refusals to discuss or even admit to guidelines. I'm not the problem here, they are. , I know you don't normally intervene in such matters by the very evident self-interest of the adminship in not tolerating criticism of admin behaviour, or even admitting to them, is a big problem. I'm not the only one who feels this way, being told that either privately or in posts such as this one, quoting:
 * "I read your post on Jimbo's talk page and just wanted to let you know your not alone with being trolled. I had that problem when I stopped editing a couple years ago. Now, more often than not, I am accused of being another editor who has been banned from the site, oddly because we shared the same view of being distrustful of many of the admins on this site. That was the primary reason why I left a couple years ago and why they were banned. Anyway, I just wanted to let you know that IMO if your arguments are against an admin, it won't matter if you are right, they will always side with an admin. The culture on this site has become one of us and them between editors and admins and editors are thought to not have a clue."

Farther up the page you will see a comment from Anythingyouwant in the "Forks" section and of course teh barnstar from Carrite about my resistance to the open warfare against me coming from the adminship and the usual pack of naysayers who don't like having their "nays" pointed out as coming from "left field", as my citation of TITLE in Talk:Stawamus (village) was described as.

Failing blocking my moves because the guidelines and view stats/googles have been (in most cases) are compelling, despite vague and unsubtantiated or deliberately waffling oppose votes/claims has, with this ANI and the arbitrary block-from-the-blue that came before it, escalated into both muzzling and character assassination - lynch mobbing. As I've observed, "character assassination is the m.o. of people with no character", to which a longtime friend of mine added "and the problem is, you have nothing to shoot back at". Character assassination is an old legal and propaganda technique, I proposed adding it to the three points on WP:Wikilawyering but that was demurred by someone alleging that NPA covers that; it should, but one-sided and very often completely hypocritical NPA claims are becoming the norm in Wikipedia.....

If this Site ban comes into effect, you will have lost one of your most prodigious and dedicated contributors; I could start to list all the topic areas I've contributed towards, and the category structures I developed with others, but that is moot now. What matters more is the collective ego of the adminship, and of those non-admins who attack regularly but can't handle being criticized themselves.....And I mean what I said at Stawamus, people who invoke TLDR out of inability or, as often the case, impatience - should take remedial reading and not make a big fuss about something that, if they don't want to read it, shouldn't be commenting on the title/topic at all.Skookum1 (talk) 05:46, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
 * That last paragraph is only 257 words, but is of the lengththat "TLDR attacks" have been and will be made against me, often burying comments and votes pertaining to issues on RMs and CFDs - making an editor the subject of a discussion instead of the guidelines and facts is proscribed on all talkpages; but is now common practice from people who affect "wikiquette" but who are always on the attack, and can 't handle criticism themselves...this article is about the decay in reading skills because of the computer age and is highly relevant.Skookum1 (talk) 05:52, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

My comments here now cited on the ANI/ban proposal as "NPA"
Thankfully there are those who support me and who are saying, like I have been saying, "back off"; my comments about all this here have now been cited there as more demonstrations of how I am continuing my "misconduct"- by Neotarf, who himself NPAd me above, though backtracked on that (kinda feebly). All I want is to continue working on Wikipedia, and not have to deal with time-consuming and inherently hostile procedure and ongoing personal attacks from those who inflict them on me; what I am seeing is people sharpening knives, trying to decide which one to use on the patient, who is very much awake. The ANI should be shut down and those ranting about TLDR be forced to read the whole of that essay and remember it's not to be used in discussions, it's only about article content. Not the first time lately I've seen guideline/essay/policy mis-used, and I'm sure it won't be the last. But that admins can so wantonly disregard guidelines and policy as they have been doing is core to the central problem at ANI and similar places. Abusiveness, and disabusing people unfairly. The old saw about a small mind equipped with great power necessarily comes to mind....Skookum1 (talk) 06:50, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Might as well quote the bit of Twain I cited on the ANI today, it applies and very much so:
 * <"In religion and politics, people's beliefs and convictions are in almost every case gotten at second-hand, and without examination, from authorities who have not themselves examined the questions at issue, but have taken them at second-hand from other non-examiners, whose opinions about them were not worth a brass farthing."

Skookum1 (talk) 07:00, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Just another curious Wikipedian with a question
Hi there. My name is Jonas Vinther and I've been on Wikipedia for a little more than 3 months now. I really like it here, I really like being an editor and to contribute to whatever it is I can. However, I've always wondered, why is IP-user edits allowed? Most, if not all, of the vandalism I've seen comes from IP users. Of course Wikipedia wouldn't be the same if only "specially selected" people were allowed to edit, but I don't think anyone who has the intention of vandalizing an article, would go through "all the trouble" of making a registered account. Of course, some people will go that far, but certainly not the majority. I'm sure I'm not alone in this belief or wonder and I'm sure other people have asked the same, and is curious if there is any talk or plans to remove IP-user from editing rights in the future or something new to prevent vandalism, which is so easy to spread on Wikipedia. Jonas Vinther (talk) 22:09, 6 April 2014 (UTC)


 * This is a perennial proposal. Cheers, Jason Quinn (talk) 15:39, 7 April 2014 (UTC)


 * What does that mean? Jonas Vinther (talk) 15:41, 7 April 2014 (UTC)


 * It means people propose your idea (preventing IP edits) over and over and over again. Please click and read the link I provided. It explains what why the idea has always denied so far. Also, please visit the Community portal, and in particular the Village pump. It is a much better place for these sorts of questions than Jimbo Wales' talk page. Jason Quinn (talk) 16:38, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Okay, thank so much. Jonas Vinther (talk) 17:27, 7 April 2014 (UTC)


 * I spend a little of my time undoing vandalism and it's a myth that it is all done by IP editors. Much of vandalism is done by IPs but edits by IPs are also scrutinized more and they seem to get blocked with a much greater frequency than registered accounts. But I find vandalism done by editors with usernames. In fact, if you are a vandal, it makes more sense to have a username because then you are not exposing your IP and geographic location. And, yes, for years I was an IP editor so these suggestions hit close to home. Liz  Read!</b> <b style="color:#006400;">Talk!</b> 17:32, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

"IPs are also scrutinized more and they seem to get blocked with a much greater frequency than registered accounts" But this is because IP accounts cannot be permanently or "indeff" blocked and registered users can so there is also less need to balance that.--Mark Miller (talk) 01:14, 8 April 2014 (UTC)


 * If we prevented anonymous editing completely, we'd reduce a huge amount of vandalism on the site, but we might also drive away some potential contributors. It'll also put a lot of rollbackers and vandal-fighters out of a job. It'll also flood the servers with tons and tons of accounts as vandals mass-create accounts just so they can attack the wiki. --k6ka (talk &#124; contribs) 01:48, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

There are a couple of reasons for allowing IP editing, but as has been noted above, a major reason is that some IP editors decide to become long-term contributors, but might not have started contributing if they had to register first. For example, I made my first edit to Wikipedia, after a couple of years as a reader, because I spotted an error in an article that no one else had noticed. So I tried out the "anyone can edit" idea (which was much more of a novelty in 2005 than it would be today), and it worked, and so I made more and more edits and eventually registered. If I had had to do the "paperwork" of registering first, I probably wouldn't have bothered, even though we've done everything we can to make registration speedy and painless. Multiply my story by X thousand others and that is one good answer to your question. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:23, 8 April 2014 (UTC)


 * That's not even halfway to answer Brad. "Some might" =/= "X thousand". Eric   Corbett  17:28, 8 April 2014 (UTC)


 * In a similar context, stopping forcing people to needlessly register lead to a 45% increase in new users $300 million dollar button. Given these people were probably more motivated than a typical potential Wikipedia editor, I suspect we do worse, though that's hard to be certain of. Wily D  08:56, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

There's a chart somewhere here (but I can't for the life of me remember where I found it) that breaks down quality of edits by registered user vs. IP's, and it's quite interesting. Yes, the majority of vandalism comes from IP's, but at the same time, they do quite a bit of good. I'm a rollbacker myself, and I have to admit, I'm more suspicious of IP edits than users. On my watchlist (primarily video game- and TCG-related articles), I'd estimate that about 40% of IP edits are vandalism, and a very small amount of registered account edits are, so if we ban IP's, we'll just throw the baby out with the bathwater by eliminating that 60%. Supernerd11 :D Firemind ^_^ Pokedex 01:52, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Another future admin burned by the community
Well done everyone, well done. Another user who wanted to be an admin has been turned off the site complete by the complete lack of trust in this community. In this RFA User:TheGeneralUser, who has done a lot of admin related stuff including a lot of work at SPI has been told to shove off and come back in 6 to 12 months. Yet they have over 1000 edits in the main namespace. Sure the editor has some flaws but nothing critical and who doesn't. This is just another perfect example of the community putting adminship up on some pedistal where it doesn't belong. Its just a few extra tools folks. Not the keys to the kingdom. 172.56.2.87 (talk) 11:22, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Hello anonymous user who has never previously posted to wikipedia using this ip address. I think we would all take this question more seriously if you used your actual account to post. Otherwise, it looks rather like you have logged out to avoid scruitiny of your main account. K, thx bye Spartaz Humbug! 13:08, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I note that on TGU's talk page the hope has been expressed that the IP reads the talk page and removes this post. It isn't helpful and it doesn't appear that TGU would want this here. Dougweller (talk) 13:14, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Although its fine to close this thread the sentiment was expressed by a couple of arbs and admins who don't want the RFA system to change. The RFA system is broken as can be seen in this RFA and needs a major overhaul. And in response to the comment above about avoiding scrutiny, this place hasn't been worth me logging in for at least the last couple years. There is absolutely nothing I want to participate in here that can't be done with an IP. Keep your attitude and lack of AGF to yourself. 172.56.3.189 (talk) 11:19, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Legitimate account
Hello, I have been wondering if It would be legitimate to make a account for people to "test" on (i.e. learning functions of twinkle, New Admins testing blocking a account, etc.). Would that be a legitimate account?

Thanks,

Happy Attack Dog ( you rang? ) 16:48, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
 * It sounds reasonable to me, but others are going to be more informed about current best practices in that area. (I don't ever use any other account than this one.)--Jimbo Wales (talk) 17:19, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
 * We've got several: New_admin/Blocking--v/r - TP 18:49, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
 * account created, as I am that account. Happy_Attack_Dog`s Test platform (talk) 21:20, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

To create a page to test edits or formatting on, please use the "Sandbox" feature in your userspace.

Creating an account for other users to run tests on might be a good idea, but I think we'd need consensus for it first. In lieu of establishing this on English Wikipedia, I believe there is a "test wiki" which uses the same software as this project, which might be better suited for such testing. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:01, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I've already pointed out that multiple IP and named accounts exist. The most obvious of which is User:ThisIsaTest.--v/r - TP 23:07, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

I will probably keep this account up for people to test on but I (Happy Attack Dog) will carefully monitor it. If we REALLY need consensus for it, we can block this account until consensus forms, but in that case, please tell "Me" where consensus would take place. Happy_Attack_Dog`s Test platform (talk) 22:19, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, giving access to an account you create by providing the login credentials (i.e. password) to someone else would be a violation of WP:U, WP:GOTHACKED and our entire CC BY-SA attribution. You would be unable to track exactly WHO made the edits.  There are many opporuntities to use a test-wiki, which does not play with real live data.  So, do not give out the password to any account you create; period  ES  &#38;L  10:45, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Could someone post a link here to the most appropriate test-wiki with a configuration similar to En-WP's? Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:38, 9 April 2014 (UTC)


 * But I never did give out my password....... Happy_Attack_Dog`s Test platform (talk) 15:50, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
 * No one said you did; they just reminded you that you shouldn't. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:27, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

I looked up test wiki on Google and found nothing related to a wiki to test on. But in the case where we need consensus, where would I go to have a !vote on this? Thanks, Happy Attack Dog  ( you rang? ) 17:00, 9 April 2014 (UTC)


 * I could be wrong, but I think this is what you want. Supernerd11 :D Firemind ^_^ Pokedex 01:56, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Is He notable?
Dear Jimmy, I've been wondering if this person, Igor Janev is notable? Does he meet WP:POLITICIAN or WP:GNG? I'm not sure so I'm asking for comments. Certainly I wouldn't create this kind of controversial article without a consensus. There are Igor Janev articles on several other wikis, including Macedonian, Ukraine and Serbian Wikipedia. It's said that he is a science adviser on the Institute of Political Sciences Belgrade. He was a Higher science collaborator of Serbian Ministry of Science (2005), later he became a university professor, he is a member of American Society of International Law, a member Academic Council of the UN system and of New York Academy of Sciences. He is the author of over 160 science articles, mostly in international magazines, the author of 17 books and monographs in the fields of international law, diplomacy, international affairs and international politics. Sources: Books of Igor Janev from Google Books. Notable Janev's science publications, and even his presence on Wikipedia received attention from Macedonian media, an news article "Someone's Deleting Igor Janev on Wikipedia". see please  http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:p6bIUZL7A44J:www.isnare.com/encyclopedia/Wikipedia:Village_pump_(miscellaneous)/Archive_44&hl=sr&gl=rs&strip=1

Furthermore, if one translate Talk section at the Macedonian Wikipedia can find that this person had more than significant role in the preservation of Macedonian constitutional name in the United Nations (the famous FYROM case).

On the other side, any one who attempt to create an article on him (at English Wikipedia) is prevented to do so. 

However, it is not the case on other Wikipedias http://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q1449737#sitelinks-wikipedia. See more inf.

Best Regards,77.234.45.133 (talk) 11:36, 6 April 2014 (UTC)


 * The article was deleted as a hoax, see Stewards' noticeboard/Archives/2013-08, and there was a lot of associated sockpuppet activity - Sockpuppet investigations/Operahome/Archive. It was also deleted on de:wp, and that was discussed here before: User talk:Jimbo Wales/Archive 140 and two items just below that. JohnCD (talk) 13:23, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
 * It seems clear to me that there's no hoax: he exists; he is an expert on the topic of Macedonia's international position; he has written this stuff; we probably should have an article on him.212.200.203.63 (talk) 16:11, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
 * If it's a hoax, the hoax must extend to many instances of fraud, because Diplomacy lists an ISBN by him, which can be searched for and purchased. ... Either the sockpuppet IP was perpetrating the hoax that it was a hoax, or ... Wikipedia's ever trigger happy sockpuppet hunters bagged themselves a bycatch.  But who would possibly believe a thing like that? Wnt (talk) 19:48, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Anyone can get an ISBN number these days, but it looks like he is recognized by WorldCat. Up until quite recently, the whole concept of a "Macedonian language" was politically unacceptable enough (we're talking here about political boundaries based on language similarities, and strong ties between Greek and U.S. governments) that as little as ten years ago, you could not even buy a textbook on Macedonian language. If you look at, for example, Amazon's search results for "Macedonian language", which for some reason I can't post here because of an edit filter, the current textbook offerings were all published quite recently, within the last year or two. —Neotarf (talk) 06:16, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Nevertheless, "Macedonian language" was officially accepted by the United Nations, and United States had recognized Macedonia in 2004. under its constitutional name (Republic of Macedonia). As for Janev, he had discovered an ULTRA VIRES act of the UN organs committed in the process of admission of Macedonia in the UN (1993) with two additional (illegal time-transcending) conditions contrary to the Int. Court of Justice Advisory opinion on such matters delivered in 1948 (and adopted as an interpretation of article 4 of the UN charter by the UNGA Res. 197/III (1948)), relating to 1. provisional Name for State in the UN, 2. condition to negotiate with another UN member - state (Greece) over the constitutional state Name of the applicant (Macedonia) for UN membership. 212.200.213.94 (talk) 07:55, 7 April 2014 (UTC)h
 * So apparently not a hoax, since more info has come out about this individual, and in English. And there is some political motive for trying to get the article deleted inappropriately, since he has apparently written some material that could be considered controversial in some quarters. See the footnote here: "Faced with Greek opposition to the name of Macedonia, the newly established state was allowed to join the U.N. on 7 April, 1993 under the temporary designation 'The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia.'"
 * Anyone concerned with establishing notability per Notability (academics) and WP:ANYBIO guidelines will find a google search quickly comes up with the text of his 1999 document published in the American Journal of International Law, as well as a number of scholarly books in English that cite this source. —Neotarf (talk) 09:58, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I am really curious if there is any chance to unblock Igor Janev so that one can create an article about him? --212.200.213.94 (talk) 00:10, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Have you considered going to Requests for undeletion or WP:AN? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:48, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't see any lock on it. It displays a "create" tab for me, but you might have to be signed in. I'm not sure if IPs can start articles. And I would foresee a further problem in finding English language sources for biographical information. All you have now is the possibility of creating a stub that lists his publications and (possibly) current job title taken from one of the publications. —Neotarf (talk) 01:18, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you Neotarf,I will try that in a couple of days or ask someone more skillful to create article on him. Regards, --212.200.213.94 (talk) 01:28, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
 * WP:Requests for undeletion would refer you to the deleting administrator, user . That is always a good first step, in any case.


 * Reading the German deletion debate and the deletion review which confirmed it, it seems that suspicion was aroused because the article made exaggerated claims which could not be verified from the sources cited. Also, it was spammed across many Wikipedias, and when deletion was discussed a large number of sockpuppets appeared to defend it. That gave the impression of a political campaign, and Wikipedia is very resistant to being used in that way.


 * The title Igor Janev is not protected against creation. In order to create an article, you will need either to register an account or to use WP:Articles for creation. Any new article will be closely scrutinised, so before making one please read Your first article, Verifiability and Wikipedia is not a soapbox and make sure that you cite a reliable source for every claim you make and maintain a neutral point of view. JohnCD (talk) 10:56, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
 * What I found was that article on Igor Janev was under strong scrutiny at Serbian Wikipedia, where it had survived three attempts for deletion. As for political dimensions, Germany had recognized Macedonian constitutional Name too, along with 134 UN member-states (including US, Russia and China) . As one can conclude, 134 UN member-states constitute more than two-thirds majority (of all 193 UN member-states), so that Macedonia can attempt to establish its constitutional Name in the UN (UNGA). I personally, do not see any challenge to maintaining neutral point of view, despite criticism (in some art. on him) where there are (his) attempts to prove illegal character of provisional Name for Macedonia (the FYROM) in the UN, as a (pre)condition for membership in UN Organization (see UNSC Res. 817 (1993)). Best regards to everyone-- 77.234.40.150 (talk) 08:02, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Most of your comment above is about the Macedonia naming dispute, not about Mr Janev. He has written a paper about his theory that the UN's actions in that dispute are contrary to international law. An article about him could mention that, and link to his paper, but it should not be a WP:COATRACK to promote his point of view, or to push one side in the dispute. How much his theory contributes to notability depends on whether there is evidence that others take it seriously, or that any action has resulted from it. Speculation about what might happen in the UNGA is gazing into a crystal ball. JohnCD (talk) 19:53, 9 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Hi John, what I have learned from Macedonian Wikipedia, were most of users know contribution of Janev, was that He was, and may be still is, a major strategist of the State Name Policy (No 1. priority in the National Security policy) . After his findings published in the American Journal of International Law - AJIL in 1999 (Vol. 93. no. 1), there was a shift in the Macedonian foreign policy putting aside negotiations with Greece. When first Macedonian President Kiro Gligorov learned from Janev in 1998. that there were serious legal problems with UNSC Res. 817 (1993) and UNGA Res. 47/225, decision had been made to concentrate on the process of establishing diplomatic relations with as many states, but strictly under Constitutional name (Republic of Macedonia). The process of collecting recognitions is still going on. As for Janev he proposed two solutions for the problem with the UN membership status (or, in other words, the problem with negotiations). First, was to wait and establish simple majority in the General Assembly (UNGA), for direct replacement of the denomination (FYROM) to legal name, based on (Janev)findings of illegal character of provisional reference. The other proposal of Janev was to follow the same procedure as in 1947, where the UN General Assembly (UNGA) had requested Advisory opinion from the International Court of Justice whether the additional conditions in the process of admission can be subject to vote in the UN organs. In 1948 ICJ delivered negative answer on that question to UNGA, and that Court answer was adopted by the UN General Assembly Res. 197/III in 1948. Based on that precedent, Janev had proposed initiating the procedure in the UN General Assembly for issuing advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice (UNGA request for the advisory opinion) on the legality of additional conditions for membership (now) in case for Macedonia. That idea of Janev was accepted by Macedonian government (Plan B) and partially presented by Mr. Ivanov (Macedonian President) at the 67. session of UNGA 2012. (where he explained illegal character of additional conditions for Macedonia). It is, also interesting, that in 2002. Igor Janev was the Special advisor of the Minister of Foreign affairs of Macedonia (Minister was Slobodan Casule). This position of Janev was equivalent to status " Advisor of State" in the Macedonian government. More facts, can be found on Serbian, Macedonian and particularly on the Russian Wikipedia (where facts are duly collected). Thank you for being interested for Macedonian case. I am sorry, if I took time to Jimbo; may be such technicalities should not be placed at his Talk page. Sincerely yours-178.223.56.109 (talk) 23:08, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
 * You may want look at Macedonia naming dispute. I don't see Janev's paper in the reference section, although he is named at Foreign relations of the Republic of Macedonia, Greece–Republic of Macedonia relations, Matthew Nimetz, Diplomacy, International relations theory, and that's probably him on List of Macedonian writers.  —Neotarf (talk) 02:32, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Jimbo's talk page is not the place to rehearse the Macedonia naming dispute and (the point I have been trying to make) an article about Janev must not be a WP:POVFORK from that one. If you want to write an article on Janev, go ahead, but it should be about him, not about the wider Macedonia issues.
 * Use WP:Articles for creation so that it gets reviewed by an experienced author
 * Read WP:Your first article and WP:Verifiability
 * Make sure you cite a reliable, published source for every claim the article makes.
 * JohnCD (talk) 09:51, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Dear John, thank you for your advise on creation of article on him. I will not be the one who will do it. In future, some of Macedonian user(s) could attempt to create article on Janev, since they probably have more information on him. I take this opportunity to express my gratitude to Neotarf for a valuable support regarding article on Janev. Thank you for your patience. On behalf of Igor Janev-178.223.56.109 (talk) 10:42, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
 * No problem. I hope someone will update the naming dispute article as well. If you want to continue the conversation offline, and you don't have a user name to use the Wikipedia email system, just google my user name. I have made my Wikipedia contact info very easy to find, especially for IP users. —Neotarf (talk) 14:26, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Please see Thomas D. Grant, Admission to the United Nations, Martinus pub., pp. 203-212      -178.222.22.90 (talk) 09:26, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I've been wondering, does Jimmy has an opinion on all that controversy surrounding affair with Igor Janev -178.222.22.90 (talk) 09:47, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Heartbleed bug
Are Wikipedia editors and readers safe from the Heartbleed bug? —Wavelength (talk) 16:41, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't know but I bet someone from the Foundation will see this and get us an answer.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 16:43, 9 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Hi, User:Wavelength. :) Wikimedia Foundation wikis were potentially affected by the bug, although there is no evidence that they have been. You can read about the precautions the WMF took here. In brief, everyone must have a new session token. The WMF recommends that all users should change their passwords as well. I've already changed mine...and eventually will be able to remember what they are. --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 16:51, 9 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your reply, and especially for the link to the message from Greg Grossmeier.
 * —Wavelength (talk) 18:46, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Ah, now this is worrisome! Changing my password immediately. Good to know some precautionary measures are being taken. --k6ka (talk &#124; contribs) 01:07, 10 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Quick fix by Special:ChangePassword: If we could just get everyone to alter their passwords (by Special:ChangePassword), then the risk from the Heartbleed bug could be minimized here. I guess more people need to switch to the wp:Unified_login so all their passwords could be changed as one update when needed. -Wikid77 14:53, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
 * What risk? A malicious hacker isn't gonna go after my WP sign-in password so that he can edit an article on Teddy Roosevelt pretending to be me, he's going for my credit card numbers... Carrite (talk) 15:18, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
 * The only thing I can imagine is that Scibaby could try to edit from an existing account to evade detection. He would then first have obtained the passwords of many of editors here and then edit from one who hasn't logged in for more than a year and then switch to another one if the first editor's activities are seen to be suspicious. Count Iblis (talk) 17:44, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Think in terms of automated "victim selection" where a computer scan tries to access many usernames+passwords, and for each successful login, then related web accounts are the follow-up path. Compare to a "con artist" who asks for a small favor, then when successful, asks for a larger, then later asks to "borrow" much and then vanishes. Or a car burglary where an open door led to release-lever for a locked trunk of valuables. Getting access to any website could be a first step among many, with auto-scanned elimination of no-login failures. -Wikid77 18:46, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

More has to be done to defend against the unknown unknowns. On the BBC it was mentioned that the honeypot strategy is being used now to turn the table on potential hackers exploiting this bug. In general, I think that this is a good defense strategy. You can think of having a large number of phoney accounts controlled by bots. If one of these gets hijacked then that is a signal that something is wrong. Also, if the ratio of phoney accounts to real acconts is large then that will signficantly reduce the chances that a real account will be compromised. Count Iblis (talk) 17:49, 10 April 2014 (UTC)


 * The notice overstates that "We have no evidence of any actual compromise to our systems or our users information". This vulnerability doesn't leave any traces in any log files.  If the servers were previously compromised, there would be no way to tell.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:03, 10 April 2014 (UTC)


 * If the passwords were stolen, we'd see accounts being compromised. If there is a change in the number of accounts compromised from baseline, we can reset all the passwords.  Otherwise, I recommend leaving it be.  There is no damage that can be done to Wikipedia that can't be easily corrected.  We're not a bank.  There's no good way for bandits to monetize stolen Wikipedia credentials, unlike bank account credentials. Jehochman Talk 18:43, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
 * But would the real Jehochman say that? (Just kidding!)--Jimbo Wales (talk) 18:49, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Since many users use the same password for multiple web sites, there is still a danger to our editors. If I were a hacker, I'd take every password I found on Wikipedia's servers and add them to a password dictionary.  The sad truth is that we simply don't know the extent of the issue.  It's possible that millions of people are affected.  It's possible the number of people affected is zero.  We simply don't know. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:17, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
 * And that's why Wikipedia, Google etc. should have special honeypot accounts such that when these get hacked, the identity of the hacker gets exposed and they can then be prosecuted. Count Iblis (talk) 22:43, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Hacking laws serve no good purpose but many bad ones. People like weev/User:Weev (just, finally, released) and Aaron Swartz/User:Aaronsw (not so lucky) get caught because they think there's "free speech" and they can't believe they can be sent up simply for annoying a corporation.  Chinese and Syrian hackers, on the other hand, can and have hacked literally anything they want to, and will continue to do so.  The hacking laws simply help companies to be avoid getting embarrassed so they can get that all-important three-month return on investment that gets the officers the big "well-deserved" bonuses, while preserving the exploits from being ruined by every tom dick and harry. Wnt (talk) 21:08, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Note that the NSA knew all along about the bug, and did nothing to help people secure computers. Spies are all on the same side, for the purpose of spying and improving their own power.  Wikipedia did all that upgrading to https: and indeed it did nothing at all to stop them.  I haven't yet read that they actually arranged for the bug, or for the one that will follow it, but what do you think? Wnt (talk) 22:00, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, for what it is worth, NPOV forces me to take note that the US government and NSA have denied knowing about it, and that the Bloomberg story is based on two anonymous sources. For obvious reasons I don't think the NSA has much credibility in all this, but I think that anonymous sources are risky - the reader has no way to judge the quality/motivations of the source.  If the NSA were run properly and for proper purposes, part of its job would be to act as "night watchman", paying experts to go through critical open source infrastructure looking for security issues and notifying people, in the same way that a cop on patrol will look for suspicious looking open windows and doors.  So if they knew and didn't tell anyone or used it for their own spying, that's bad.  But if they didn't know, then what the hell are we spending billions of dollars for?  They're supposed to be helping with cybersecurity.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 22:36, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I have to admit that's a very good point. Still... by their statement, their obligation to secure the government's OpenSSL is subject to the sort of national security exception they readily abuse.  And even if I trusted their statement that the government "wasn't aware of" the Heartbleed bug, it wouldn't rule out that a contractor in their employ did and using it to collect large amounts of data - and as Barrett Brown reported, there is a lucrative private market in zero-day exploits.  I'd think that would permit them to keep the exploit's use at arm's length and retain 'plausible deniability'. Wnt (talk) 04:33, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Human dignity
I've opened a discussion about whether we should take account of human dignity at Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 03:25, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Debate about Impossible Mission article.
I'm having a debate with JakIIDax about the article about Commodore 64/Atari 7800 platformer video game Impossible Mission here. }I Mr* &#124; (60nna) I{ 18:41, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Ok, I read all of that. I don't really understand your position.  JakllDax seems problematic but as a person with no knowledge of the subject matter, I'd be interested to read a clear explanation of why the game is not "exploration-based".--Jimbo Wales (talk) 22:31, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Hillary Rodham Clinton → Hillary Clinton
Despite the subject preferring to be named Hillary Rodham Clinton, usually being named Hillary Rodham Clinton in official documents, often being named Hillary Rodham Clinton elsewhere, and naming her upcoming autobiography Hillary Rodham Clinton, it looks like Wikipedia's article is about to be renamed Hillary Clinton. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 07:31, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
 * WP:TROUT to anthonycole for blatant violation of WP:Canvass. Seriously, if you're going to inform other places do so neutrally, which that wasn't.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 19:30, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
 * And? AndyTheGrump (talk) 07:33, 7 April 2014 (UTC)


 * I think it would be a mistake to name a BLP something other than the subject's preferred name when neither name diminishes the encyclopedia's utility. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 07:36, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't think we should be getting ahead of ourselves. This isn't a straight up vote and a good deal of the supporters have ...well, lets just say not everyone supporting the move has good reasoning or a decent argument.--Mark Miller (talk) 07:39, 7 April 2014 (UTC)


 * As mistakes go, if it is one, it seems rather insignificant - she is certainly referred to as 'Hillary Clinton' often enough, and as far as I'm aware, hasn't actually objected to this. Indeed, she seems sometimes to refer to herself that way. Is it really worth getting that worked up over the presence or absence of a single word in an article title? Nobody is going to think the article refers to anyone else. AndyTheGrump (talk) 07:52, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree this instance is relatively unimportant, but the principle - that a BLP subject's preferred name should not be displaced by another as the article's title for no other reason than a trivial rule (WP:COMMONNAME) when both names are equally useful - matters to me. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 08:04, 7 April 2014 (UTC)


 * I don't see WP:COMMONNAME as 'trivial'. There may sometimes be legitimate reasons not to follow it, but as a general principle it seems entirely appropriate. Our article on the large seal-hunting mammal of Arctic regions is entitled 'Polar Bear', rather than 'Ursus maritimus' because the former is what we expect our readers to know it as. And come to that, we have an article on another Clinton that likewise follows WP:COMMONNAME. As for both names being 'equally useful', I would have to suggest that utility could really only be assessed by usage - which comes down to WP:COMMONNAME again. AndyTheGrump (talk) 08:21, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
 * WP:COMMONNAME cuts both ways if you cannot demonstrate one is truly the most common usage. Right now the heaviest argument appears to be her ads where she states "I'm Hillary Clinton and I approve this message". but that is illustrative of political expedience not what she, herself wishes to be referred to as or what is the actual most common usage.--Mark Miller (talk) 08:32, 7 April 2014 (UTC)


 * If you have evidence regarding 'actual most common usage', presumably you have raised it in the discussion. So what's the problem? AndyTheGrump (talk) 08:56, 7 April 2014 (UTC)


 * It's trivial in this instance because enforcing it has no impact on findability. Searching Wikipedia and all the common engines for either "Hillary Clinton" or "Hillary Rodham Clinton" takes you to the article. If Ursus maritimus were a people who preferred to be known as that rather than "polar bear" I would support moving Polar bear to Ursus maritimus - but they are not a people and they seem unconcerned about what people name them. I believe that when either name will take a searcher to the article with alacrity we should choose the one preferred by the BLP subject. I know there is a school of thought that believes respect for our subjects has no place here, but I'm not of that bent. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 08:39, 7 April 2014 (UTC)


 * The problem with the argument that the article name should follow the BLP subject's preference (even if it is Clinton's preference, which is far from established) is that it's being advanced in the wrong place. That debate needs to take place on the talk page of Article titles with a view to amending that policy. It's not currently policy, so is not relevant to the RFC. But it's not such a clear-cut policy change: if brought in we may be grateful that the subject's demise allows us to avoid Idi Amin Dada, VC, DSO, MC, CBE, Conqueror of the British Empire. DeCausa (talk) 08:57, 7 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Come off it, Anthonyhcole, this isn't some huge BLP-violation issue. If the subject herself uses the name, and raises no objections when others do, and if the name is more commonly used, making it out to be some sort of insult won't wash. In any case, this is an encyclopaedia, written for our readers, not for the subjects of our articles - and we often include all sorts of things that such subjects would prefer we didn't, as a matter of course. Frankly though, I'd be surprised if Hillary Rodham Clinton actually cared that much what we entitled her biography - I suspect she'd be more concerned about the content than the label. And so should we be. AndyTheGrump (talk) 09:10, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
 * As I say, I don't think this instance matters very much. But the principle does to me. If a subject says they'd prefer to be named X, even if they occasionally use Y (again, provided it doesn't affect the reader experience - and this case doesn't), I think we should take the subject's preference into account. We disagree. Neither of us will convince the other and I'm OK with that. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 09:23, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Hum...the subject of this discussion puts BLP to the test....least for me. Is her full name really the way she wants to be referred to?--MONGO 11:36, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
 * MONGO, looks like it. —Neotarf (talk) 12:12, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
 * According to Anthony York at Salon: After Bill was elected president in 1992, Hillary told the press corps that she wanted to be known as Hillary Rodham Clinton. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 12:44, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Er, according to that Salon article, she has been re-branded and "joined the ranks of Madonna, Cher, Sting and R2-D2". She is "now simply Hillary. Not Hillary Rodham. Not Hillary Clinton. Not Hillary Rodham Clinton. Just Hillary." Hmm, are you thinking what I'm thinking?  Hillary is currently a redirect..... —Neotarf (talk) 13:25, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
 * That's what the Salon guy says. The last word from Hillary seems to be, Call me Hillary Rodham Clinton. If she said somewhere that she wanted to be known as Hillary, like Cher, I'd like to see it. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 13:47, 7 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Changing the name (i.e. dropping Rodham) is just simple misogyny, quite similar to how middle-aged white men think they know what's best for women in regards to their bodies. Tarc (talk) 12:46, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
 * We wouldn't be having this discussion if this were not a boy's club. Remember the battle to move away from Sarah Brown (wife of Gordon Brown)? A lot of the same crowd defending that title are arguing for dropping "Rodham". --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 12:57, 7 April 2014 (UTC)


 * I tend to agree with this point. It seems that all available evidence is that in this particular case it doesn't matter from the perspective of search engines being able to direct people appropriately.  It probably does matter from the perspective of understanding - it's an important part of her public persona that she has chosen to keep her birth name in this fashion.  (Naming conventions are changing, and she's an important catalyst in that.)  And it certainly matters from a BLP perspective - and that's true even though it is a relatively minor matter.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 14:34, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
 * A big part of the discussion is actually the dispute over whether she has "chosen to keep" that part of her name, or whether she has chosen to rebrand herself. Since January 2007, her campaign announcement, all of her campaign ads, and all ballot appearances have used "Hillary Clinton" and it would be unsurprising if she followed that pattern again in the future. Since she has introduced this impression, it makes sense to many editors to title the article that way. It can always be moved back if she takes steps in the future to reverse this trend, like reintroducing "Rodham" in future campaign announcements, campaign ads, or ballot appearances.   - WPGA2345 -     ☛   17:14, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Looking at the debate, I was getting the vibe that the Republicans wanted the Rodham for some reason (I was thinking they were trying to suggest a coldness per their unbreakable fascination with that intern). But looking with such search terms, I find  which says the Democrats prefer it for strategic reasons.  Then again, that's for getting vote from Northern Democrats.  For all I know, the fickle winds of public opinion have since changed, especially since I'm not sure it was ever a meaningful difference in numbers.  But what I take from all this is that there actually could be a reason why she'd be pressing for the rebranding, and if so, per my position in the Chelsea Manning discussions we had here before, we generally are sympathetic to that.  N.B. we still haven't gotten the message about Yusuf Islam, though. Wnt (talk) 17:37, 7 April 2014 (UTC)


 * I've sent a message to her people to ask what she prefers.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 18:31, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 20:08, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
 * "To your question, "Hillary Rodham Clinton" would be the preference." is the response.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 22:46, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks again. Much appreciated. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 03:43, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you — nicely done. —Neotarf (talk) 04:59, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry Jimbo, but like me, you are not a reliable source for Wikipedia articles, nor are "her people". As everyone knows, "Generally, article titles are based on what the subject is called in reliable sources...."  Anyway, there's no indication what she prefers her longer name for.  Just the Wikipedia article?  For every public use?Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:17, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Jimbo is not the source here, her representatives are and you cannot claim it isn't Hillary's actual desire. Admin regularly get requests from subjects about names and DOB and there have been some very creative manners of verifying the content, but this was a simple question posed to the subject's representatives and is perfectly inline with many similar situations including the Manning case were her legal team was asked by an editor what they really preferred, so there is both precedence for this as well as actual common sense.--Mark Miller (talk) 01:58, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
 * What was the question?Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:02, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Its right up there in Jimbo's comment. I can't speak for him, perhaps he will respond.--Mark Miller (talk) 02:05, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm fascinated that you would go so far as to ask their advice, which is especially dangerous considering that consensus may not be aligned with Clinton's current leanings. Let me ask you this - would you consider reaching out To the governments of Ivory Coast and Burma which represent, or at least purport to represent, many millions of people, or are you only going to stick your neck out for Hillary? Commonname and other titling policies have been long established and one of the most well trafficked RMs in history voted AGAINST the subject's very clearly expressed preference - (Bradley Manning) and only after a group of editors (which included myself) meticulously documented reliable source usage to demonstrate that a month later commonname HAD changed, did Wikipedia move the article. If you aren't willing to use your connections to discover the preferences of Kiev and Cat Stevens and Ivory Coast and Burma, well, I guess it's showing a strange brand of preferentialism. It's perhaps a moot point since the preferences of those named entities has been made quite clear repeatedly, but per policy and consensus Wikipedia doesn't care. Sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander - in the aftermath of the Manning debacle we tried to soften titling policy to include a provision to consider subject's preferred name but alas consensus wasn't there. That would be the place for Jimbonian intervention IMHO, not on a page and where the subject ran for President of the United States under the proposed title.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 19:39, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't have the least clue or concern with whatever is you are talking about. "Dangerous" in what way?  To answer the question you didn't ask - no, there is no "preferentialism" involved in listening to what BLP subjects want.  I take the view, stated repeatedly in many different contexts, that one important factor (not necessarily 100% dispositive) to keep in mind is the wishes of the subjects of BLP.  No, we won't do anything ridiculous for them, but it's completely absurd to say we shouldn't ask.  If you've got a contact to anyone relevant in the world you'd like me to email, then I'm happy to take it up where feasible.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 22:46, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you Jimbo for doing this. I'm the most frequent contributor on the Hillary article, and whenever I tell people in real life that I'm bogged down in yet another move attempt, they usually ask, "Why doesn't someone contact her office and find out what she prefers?"  That's the common sense thing to do and (especially given our other policies about BLPs) it's common sense to make that a major factor in what the article should be titled.  Wasted Time R (talk) 00:03, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't think you've been keeping up with BLPs if you are so fascinated that anyone would take the step to just ask the actual person. Seriously, the issue of what the subject desires in these matters does have some weight. it may not be the end all of the discussion but...we may even be pointed to more recent sources one way or another.--Mark Miller (talk) 20:42, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Wikipedians can never resist a fallacious slippery-slope argument, can they? Burma and Ivory Coast are countries. Hillary Clinton is a person. We routinely handle people differently than countries or other subjects. We even have a fundamental policy to that effect. Separately, the fact that Jimbo can't comment on every naming dispute does not disqualify him from commenting on this one. The ferocity of this dispute is all the odder because it is completely unclear to a sane outsider (me) how anyone gains any advantage at all from either proposed name. Can someone explain what harm is done by honoring the article subject's preferences in this case? I mean, without resorting to sophistry about Ivory Coast and Burma? MastCell Talk 19:52, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Hillary has used both names to identify herself, that's the conundrum here. I find it hard to say she is opposed to simply being referred to as "Hillary Clinton" when that's the name she used while running for president. The people who cried to dad about the move request here conveniently left that bit out.  Hot Stop     (Edits)   19:59, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
 * There's no reason to think she 'opposes' either but her publicist has made it clear what the 'preference' is. Given that the evidence is pretty evenly balanced, I would say that is an important factor to consider.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 22:46, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
 * It's the same page either way, right? Just have Hillary Clinton, Hillary Rodham Clinton, etc redirected (But not just Hillary, that's too vague) to the page that I would assume would stay with the full legal name. I can't think of a reason to move away from it, since both with and without the Rodham are common names for her. Supernerd11 :D Firemind ^_^ Pokedex 20:04, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
 * turn the argument around. By mis-labeling Kiev, you are indirectly insulting millions of Ukrainians, reminding them of their Russian past - the same applies to people from Cote D'ivoire. By mis-naming Clinton, you are possibly rubbing one person the wrong way, and here it's rather debatable that she even cares, since she printed many tens of millions of ballots in 2008 with the name 'Hillary Clinton' - so it obviously wasn't that bad of a name, indeed one might even convincingly say she demonstrated a preference for that name when it was politically expedient. Also, fwiw, Yusuf Islam is a person, too. I can bring a list of many more instances where we have ignored subject's clearly expressed preference but they aren't as famous as Hillary and thus may not attract attention of our benevolent monarch... :)--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 20:09, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
 * What you really have to ask yourself, is why are people so devoted to moving the page? As people have said, it doesn't really make a big difference. But the devotion to moving the page by a group of editors does mean something. I'm not trying to say that all(or even most) of the move supporters are obsessed with the move, but there are definitely some. I could make my case here, as I've done on the article Talk page, but it's all been said. It seems to me that a portion of people just do not want HRC to have that "R" in her name. After all, a redirect goes straight to the article, why would anyone REALLY want to move it? Everyone knows she has become notable under the Hillary Rodham Clinton name, and even if some have moved away from describing her that way, it seems more than a bit silly to insist a rename of the article. The article name has been stable since 2001. Thanks. Dave Dial (talk) 21:34, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
 * this is typically an argument used by the incumbents. We have had epic debates over commas in title, so suggesting there is an anti-Rodham faction here means you don't really get why wikipedians argue. The reasons for moving have been laid out in great detail by BD2412, and the redirect for HRC will lead to HC so why do you care if it's moved? The redirect argument is irrelevant and useless as both sides can use the same argument.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 21:43, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
 * To be clear, the difference between Kyiv and Manning is a) Kyiv is not subject to a special BLP policy, and b) Kyiv as an idea is not unarguably the property of any one group of people. As uncontroversial as the notion of Ukraine for the Ukrainians may be in the West, we would be pushing a POV to say that's a logical standard that should guide our curation.  In a case like that it's far better to kick the can to the sources and let them take the flack.  To put it another way: suppose Manning changes (her) name to Chelsea.  We update the article to reflect the most recent name, just as we updated the article about the Sears Tower to whatever name they call it now (I keep forgetting).  For both the person and the tower we admit there's an owner with the right to make the change.  But if we get into the argument of who has the right to rename [  London]Derry, well, that's a battleground.  So we leave it to at least a hypothetical democracy of the sources. Wnt (talk) 22:48, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Outrageously inappropriate
I find the whole idea of directly asking a BLP subject, or the subject's representatives, what their preference is for the BLP article title to be outrageously inappropriate. Where do I begin? WP:NOR? That nothing in WP:AT nor in WP:BLP even hints the subject's preference should be given a modicum of consideration? Once again, I'm amazed to what lengths people will go when what they believe is the "right answer" is at odds with community consensus as reflected in policy and conventions. Well, I thought I heard of them all, but here we have another tactic to add to the list. --B2C 06:58, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
 * This is a bit of an overreaction and I can tell you from experience that contacting the subject of a BLP is not against any policy, guideline or procedure and is in no way inappropriate. I understand your confusion but I took the issue to ANI already over a similar situation and it was clearly demonstrated to me that, not only is there nothing wrong with it, but it is also rather common. BLP subjects contact admin all the time to request information be corrected including names, date of births and other personal information needing clarification. I have been in contact with a number of subjects that have BLP articles and in one case I was afraid it constituted some infraction and took all of their concerns to an admin. It turns out it need not be an admin but any experienced editor. I also contacted one subject to apologize for my insensitivity towards their concerns thinking the very same as you. We are not in the CIA, the FBI or any other covert operation. It is her name. It really is. The issue is what name to use in the article and there are many editors who are actually trying to claim they know what the subjects preference is from video ads. It was important to actually know what the subject themselves does prefer since we have so many claiming they already know based on ...what...a video where she says "I approved this message"?--Mark Miller (talk) 07:21, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Her preference is irrelevant. What matters is the preference of reliable sources.  There is no clear cut answer from that, so we go with the shorter one, per WP:CONCISION.  It is that simple. All this discussion about her preference is smokescreen.   --B2C 07:32, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
 * When a long standing title is challenged (even when it should never have been allowed so soon after another attempt a few months ago) and sources conflict...we stick with the long standing title. Her preference is relevant, it just isn't the end of it, nor is your opinion. We have allowed the RFC to move forward and you don't appear to be the closer, so why not just calm down and understand that your perception may well be wrong.--Mark Miller (talk) 08:07, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
 * B2C, I think you've got the wrong (or premature) target. We all say/do things out of line from policy from time to time, there's no reason why Jimbo should be any different. What would be outrageous is if the three determining admins took it into account. From a policy point of view, the claim from her "people" is not a WP:RS. Even if it were, her preference does not figure in WP:AT or WP:BLP. As far as IAR/common sense is concerned, the information is unusable as we don't know the context of "her people's" view. Did their answer just assume that a Wikipedia title should bear the subject's full official name (I suggest it is counter-intuitive to non-Wikipedians that this is not our policy) or did they know our policy is to follow general usage? With all that, it's just an interesting but not relevant factoid at the moment ... unless the three admins do something with that factoid. DeCausa (talk) 08:15, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
 * WP:BLPKIND:"Editors should make every effort to act with kindness toward the subjects of biographical material when the subjects arrive to express concern" and the same would apply if someone contacts the representatives or the subject. We don't have any policy against it. Also the Wikimedia Foundation resolution states we treat the subjects with patience, kindness, and respect. This means even when someone goes out of their way to ask them. So yes, what they prefer is relevant, but again is not the end of it.--Mark Miller (talk) 08:27, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
 * The closing admins may take into account what the subject prefers when considering the arguments presented by editors arguing what they perceive to be the preference of the subject. Again, that was what this is about and the admin would not be violating anything should they understand that all argument about what the subject prefers can be put at rest by their explicit statement through representatives. Period.--Mark Miller (talk) 08:29, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
 * When did Hillary Clinton (or even her "people") "express concern"? That is nothing to do with being solicited a point of view. If the admins took it into account they would be acting outside of policy. Full stop. DeCausa (talk) 08:32, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
 * If you are going to dance...don't lead. Mrs. Clinton does not need to have expressed concern. An experienced editor contacted her representatives. This isn't about her concern so please don't deflect. This is simply about a preference. The situation was important enough to the entire discussion that someone just asked.--Mark Miller (talk) 08:43, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
 * You were the one that quoted "Editors should make every effort to act with kindness toward the subjects of biographical material when the subjects arrive to express concern". If you don't thinks it's relevant don't raise it. DeCausa (talk) 08:46, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I think we should have our people contact her people to ask if they'd prefer for the BLP to be glowingly favorable, or would prefer the title president-in-waiting, or both.Anythingyouwant (talk) 08:51, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
 * People ask people how they should be referred to all the time, and other people accede to that all the time -- it's pretty basic human dignity. Moreover, it's an ordinary human thing to express a concern, when asked. It's not like the title is not well sourced in biographical sources. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 11:59, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

re "Her preference is irrelevant. What matters is the preference of reliable sources. " - Hear hear!!!! Man.... this debate just recycles and recycles. Remember Chelsea Manning and all the BLPers who caused a huge stink by immediately trying to retitle that article? They were wrong then, and they are wrong now. WP:COMMONNAME trumps WP:BLP in titling articles. WP:COMMONNAME trumps WP:BLP in titling articles. And once again, WP:COMMONNAME trumps WP:BLP in titling articles. Can we stop this nonsense? NickCT (talk) 12:17, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
 * No. BLP and Commoname work together.  Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:23, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
 * That's right. There's nothing in BLP which is inconsistent with or alters the application of COMMONNAME. DeCausa (talk) 12:29, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
 * While it is true that BLP and Commonname work together, if push comes to shove there is absolutely no question whatsoever that BLP trumps Commonname by a very very wide margin. Commonname is a minor editorial policy about our in-house style. BLP is central and fundamental to our work.  The opposite position is totally unsupported by our mission, our traditions, our values.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 12:31, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Indeed. Commonname cannot be read or applied without reference to BLP for BLPs. Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:33, 8 April 2014 (UTC)


 * note on past consensus on this issue in the first move request for bradley manning, which had massive participation, subject's clearly stated preferences were rejected in favor of commonname. In the second move request, again with massive participation by the community, there was no consensus that subject's preference should trump commonname - but since editors judged commonname had shifted the page was moved (see Talk:Chelsea_Manning/October_2013_move_request. Subsequent attempts including one by myself and others to soften titling policy to take subject preferences into account in cases where commonname was a close call also did not result in anything near consensus. This statements above that BLP trumps commonname have not gained consensus in several different venues with several different sets of editors, while Jimbo's view on this is clearly stated and perhaps even "right" the community has not come around yet, so any such claims to the contrary should be rejected pending a community-wide RFC to establish a new consensus on the issue.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 13:15, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
 * That seems a rather unsubtle analysis of that close.  Subject preference, WP:Harm, and WP:Dignity worked to give the Chelsea Manning' article its title over the rationale just invoking Commonname.  Subject preference, WP:Harm, and WP:Dignity are concerns arising under BLP policy. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:38, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
 * read it yourself Alan. The closers were explicit that there was no consensus that BLP applied in this case.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 13:46, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I have read it. They were explicit in invoking personal preference, and the other things I mentioned to give the title its name over the argument only invoking commonname. Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:50, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
 * You've misread my contributions to that close. The only BLP issue that I weighed was whether using one name or the other caused actual harm. I never considered Manning's preferences at all: the only way they are relevant is by their influence on reliable sources.&mdash;Kww(talk) 14:18, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
 * As you now say, the personal preferences "are relevant." Which means, they are relevant. Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:27, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Only indirectly: if someone wants to be called "Fred" but the NYT, People, the LA Times, etc., all call him "Freddie", he's "Freddie" here, too. If he persuades the NYT, People, the LA Times, etc. to start calling him "Fred", he's "Fred" here, too. We should never make an independent determination as to his preferences.&mdash;Kww(talk) 14:34, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Sure, we communicate with BLP subjects. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:40, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Name preference has been an issue with the article on Acharya S. She's afraid that use of her real name will cause her harm, it has caused her harm before. See WP:BLPNAME: When the name of a private individual has not been widely disseminated or has been intentionally concealed, such as in certain court cases or occupations, it is often preferable to omit it, especially when doing so does not result in a significant loss of context. Read more at the article's talk page. Raquel Baranow (talk) 14:48, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I should add: this issue is still unresolved and could use some help to delete the "real name." Raquel Baranow (talk) 14:56, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
 * @Alanscottwalker - re "Which means, they are relevant." - Wow. Way to twist someone's words. I always love when someone tries to tell you that they know what your words mean better than you do.
 * @User:Jimbo_Wales - re " no question whatsoever that BLP trumps Commonname" - Respectfully sir, I must dissent. Either your name is what people call you or it is what you wish to be called. The former is the commonname position. The latter the BLP position. If WP leans towards the BLP side of the debate it raises all sorts of difficult questions, like 1) How do we know the subject's preference?, or 2) What if Hillary Clinton wanted to be called "Snuggles McGee"?. No no no. We should, once again, reject the BLP debate on the basis that its application would just be silly. You yourself sir have countless times rightfully pointed to the importance of WP being governed by reliable sources. Why is this different?
 * @User:Obiwankenobi - re "This statements above that BLP trumps commonname have not gained consensus" - Yes yes yes. Thank you. NickCT (talk) 14:52, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
 * "Wow." No. Plainly not - those are the words used. Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:01, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

May a BLP subject's preference influence our editorial choices?
Jimbo and others have invoked BLP above but that policy doesn't expressly permit us to weigh our subjects' preference when editing, or choosing a title. This absence of permission is often read as prohibition. Are we prohibited from taking into account the preference of our subject, when doing so won't diminish the encyclopedia's utility? If not, may subject's preference trump black letter policy when doing so doesn't diminish the encyclopedia? Never? Sometimes? (When?) Always? --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 13:24, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I do not agree that policy doesn't expressly permit us to weigh subjects' preference. This is a myth.  It has very long been practice to weigh the wishes of article subjects as one factor.  This is not just community policy, it is Foundation policy.  The BLP resolution, point 4, is explictly about this.  Let me put this all another way: there is nothing in policy which hints at or even suggests that we are disallowed from making Wikipedia better by listening to article subjects.  The people pushing the alternative point of view have absolutely nothing in policy to stand on.
 * Arguments about this are often muddled by counter-arguments that are not on-point. So to be clear: no, article subjects do not have an absolute veto over articles.  There are other policies that matter.  But if we are to be respectful, if we are to be accurate, if we are to be ethical, then we must take into account, as one factor, the BLP concerns of any individual (or group of individuals) written about in Wikipedia.  There is no policy justification for ignoring such things.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 14:28, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
 * The BLP resolution, point 4, explicitly addresses the person who has a complaint about how they are described in our projects. It is very limited. It seems to be advising patience and politeness. It seems to only address someone who is making a complaint. The reason Manning was what it was; the reason Clinton is heading for a hair cut; the reason Cat Stevens is still Cat Stevens is that people can throw about phrases like, "We must never take into account what the BLP subject wishes, we don't do what they tell us" ad nauseam in those debates unchallenged. It isn't clear. It may be clear in your understanding. But can you point me to a bit of text in en.Wikipedia policy that says, "Yes, we do take account of our subject's preferences and dignity when doing so doesn't unduly diminish the encyclopedia?" --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 15:36, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I have no problem with contacting a BLP and have done so in the past. Nothing prohibits it. As on example, we explicitly give opportunities for BLPs to upload photos of themselves that capture an image they prefer, and I think this is reasonable. However the title is determined by our titling policy which, as of now, has no provision for preferences of the subject, and the examples of Cat Stevens, Burma, Kiev, Ivory Coast and many others demonstrate that Wikipedia consensus has been to follow titling policy irrespective of preference even if said preference has been clearly stated in RS. Consensus has not come around on this issue, and I think we would be doing a disservice to other BLPs if we make an exception for Clinton or give the impression that Jimbo is intervening on her behalf but if he doesn't intervene on the hundred other bios, country names, indigenous tribe names, etc that are all named with titles the rightful owners detest. I think a better path is to get a group together to change titling policy and elaborate in which case preference can be brought in - but up to now such changes have, I stress, been rejected by the community. Until we can change the policy I don't think exceptions should be made especially when based on WP:CRITERIA Hillary Clinton is a slam dunk. Preference is the ONLY thing on the other side of the scale, and given current policy that's not Enough. Another example where we take prefs into account is birthdays - if subject request we remove birthdays and I'm sure would remove in most cases names of children. However if subject request we remove mention of their rape conviction we aren't likely to comply. So the answer is, it depends, but up till now titles have not gained any consensus that subjects wishes should prevail.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 13:42, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
 * It is absolutely false to say "Hillary Clinton is a slam dunk" - a huge number of people quite rightly disagree with you.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 14:29, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Jimbo with all due respect no credible case has been made that HRC fulfills WP:CRITERIA better than HC. Some have argued HRC is more common but they are a minority and the evidence is strongly stacked against them. I suggest you read BD2412's detailed case where he provides masses of evidence and sourcing to demonstrate that HC is a slam dunk. You and others may feel otherwise but unfortunately all you've really got on your side is preference.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 15:38, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
 * It's also false to claim a "huge number" of editors disagree with the proposed move when less than one-third of participants in the move request opposed it.  Hot Stop     (Edits)   15:50, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Dealing respectfully with another involves respecting their preferred name. Messing with it for no good reason is an insult. The Foundation in its BLP resolution urges us to take account of the dignity of our subjects, not gratuitously insult them. In cases where some rule says, with no benefit to the encyclopedia, we should disrespect their name choice, it seems to me that we should heed the Foundation's resolution and ignore the rule. But I'd like to hear other opinions. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 14:01, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
 * saying that titling Clinton's article using the same name as her website, twitter, and millions of ballots and electoral commission applications and op-eds is somehow an insult stretches your credibility and that of everyone using this as a case to make a stand. It's the wrong article to make this stand on, there's no conceivable world where the word insult can be applied here.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 14:12, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Come now. The insult being referred to is ignoring people concerning their name. Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:20, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, if there is an insult, it's only because Jimbo took it upon himself to solicit her opinion on the topic. There's no indication if she felt strongly about it if she had not been asked (despite all the polemic to the contrary). But, if the RfC now goes against her stated opinion then it is a kind of slap in the face. You asked me what I think and then do the opposite?. But if that happens, Jimbo should carry the can for that and it shouldn't be used as a gun to the community's collective head in that way. DeCausa (talk) 14:52, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Gun? We have well referenced in biography sources a longstanding biography title, at the name the subject has expressed a biographical preference for. It does not contravene policy to use that title, and it's well supported in policy to use it. Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:35, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Compare "The insult being referred to is ignoring people concerning their name" with "Click here to reach the Office of Hillary Clinton", the opening page of www.hillaryclinton.com. Clearly there is no "insult" in using "Hillary Clinton". However, there is an insult in asking which she prefers and then ignoring it - which potentially is the position Jimbo has put Wikipedia in. DeCausa (talk) 15:42, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
 * And people argued contra that well qualified sources that are biography use the name she prefers for biography. We are writing biography, after all. Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:54, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
 * That's a different point. That speaks to which title should be used. I was adressing whether using "Hillary Clinton" would be actually "insulting". Before Jimbo's intervention it couldn't have been because of, inter alia, use on her own website. DeCausa (talk) 16:12, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
 * It's not a different point because even before that communication there were qualified biographical sources that demonstrated the subject's preference. Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:18, 8 April 2014 (UTC)


 * The way the person is referred to in other reliable sources is the thing that matters. The personal preference of the person involved is nearly irrelevant: I could only see it being used in tie-breaker situations. We are not a press release agency, and are not subject to the wishes and demands of PR agencies. We reflect the content of reliable sources.&mdash;Kww(talk) 14:14, 8 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Why, Kww? If it's clear that the person concerned prefers a particular name but they're better known by another, why would we name their biography the latter and not the former? I know it's what we do, but can you tell me why we do it? It seems gratuitously rude to me - but I'm hoping I'm missing something. E.g., Cat Stevens has been Yusuf Islam since 1978. There's no doubt what his preferred name is. Why do we insist on calling him Cat, when Google would find the article whichever term the searcher used and whichever we named it? --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 15:13, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I made a good faith effort to change policy in this matter which would have led to moves of Cat Stevens as well as moves of articles about indigenous tribes using their preferred nomenclature vs the colonial-imposed name which is offensive. We failed to gain consensus for such a policy change. I suggest you try again - if it's important this impacts many bios beyond Clinton's, and if policy changes I will line up behind it. In short the answer is 'consensus says otherwise' - consensus is a tricky beast esp around article titles which leads to epic battles.Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 15:33, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Because tracking reliable sources minimizes bias. Using a subject's preference leads us away from accurate reporting towards positive reporting. There are vanishingly few cases where, given a choice between being portrayed accurately and being portrayed positively, a subject would choose accuracy. Names are just one subtle form of bias: are you going to go ask people if they want to be portrayed as a "philanthropist"? A "reformer"? Whether a royal title should or should not be applied? These are not things where we should ever give the subject a voice. As a test case, the presence or absence of "Rodham" isn't particularly exciting, as it is hard to see what bias it could apply. That doesn't make the general principle you are campaigning for any less dangerous.&mdash;Kww(talk) 15:36, 8 April 2014 (UTC)


 * I'm fairly sure my dangerous proposition has always included "where doing so doesn't diminish the encyclopedia" or similar, Kww. Can you think of a plausible hypothetical example of acceding to the subject's naming preference, where doing so doesn't diminish the encyclopedia, but introduces bias. Yousuf is on the record in hundreds - probably thousands - of reliable sources saying his name is Yusouf Islam. It's not like there's any doubt about the matter. How would respecting his preference in naming his article introduce bias? --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 15:56, 8 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Let's take this back to first principles. The issue is that the title of an article is actually not part of the article and not subject to the usual sensibility that applies to article content.  It is, instead, a kind of indexing information.  Specifically, "WP:Recentism", normally a somewhat negative phenomenon of how our articles are compiled, is not a problem with an article name.  This is because encyclopedia readers expect to look something up under its present name, viewing the old name as "out of date".  This is why Bradley should become Chelsea, even though an all-time count of all news articles ever written heavily favors the former.  This is why we dutifully rename landmark buildings when they sell someone naming rights.  Now when it comes to the name of an entity, human or otherwise, that entity is best entitled to determine its name, and so its "wishes" are relevant - however, we should be clear that by "wishes" we don't mean a vaguely expressed desire in personal communication with some random editor, but rather, verifiable evidence that the entity is actually using that name.  True, in the absence of sourcing, or with contradictory sourcing, a personal communication should be a tie-breaker; and when Jimbo Wales attests that he received a communication, that's a known source we are much inclined to trust to be reliable; but really, it is best if we can get at least a self-published primary source grade citation that the BLP is using the new name.  I think there is a good argument HRC's books are such a source, and I think that whatever "her people" say, it seems more remote than what she literally authored herself.  Nonetheless, if you get a letter or blog entry on the record in response that's good too. Wnt (talk) 14:44, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Anthonyhcole - "If not, may subject's preference trump black letter policy when doing so doesn't diminish the encyclopedia? Never? Sometimes?" - Thanks for asking the important question. My two cents is that the answer is usually never. I think the right path here is to say "Follow WP:COMMONNAME. If the commonname is ambiguous, consider WP:BLP.", but WP:COMMONNAME ultimately has primacy. NickCT (talk) 14:57, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

May a BLP subject's preference influence our editorial choices? - The answer to this must always be a resounding no, whatever the issue. BLP has nothing to do with bending us to BLP subject's wishes. BLP has to do with being especially cautious and accurate and take privacy into account. But we're not a PR agency. Whatever a subject thinks about how we should cover them is and has to be entirely irrelevant. We follow sources -if they happen to agree with the subjects' concern, fine; if they not, too bad for the subject. To put it simple: if I wish to be called with my name, but everyone knows me as "Dr. PartyPooper" and sources state so, then the right thing to do is calling my article Dr.PartyPooper, no matter how much I hate it. Anything else and WP:NPOV goes straight into the rubbish bin. And notice that this is the ethical position, because it respects our readers and guarantees them verifiable and neutral information. We're here for our readers, not to please celebrities or other BLP subjects.-- cyclopia <sup style="color:red;">speak! 15:50, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, the thing is though, when we put "known as PartyPooper" into an article, this is a fully justifiable addition, reflecting available sources - but when we call the article "PartyPooper", that's our statement of who the subject actually is, not a statement by sources. I think people on Wikipedia put way too much effort into deciding what articles are called, but it's that distinction from normal article content that drives it.  A decision has to be made, and we have to make it.  (I think this may be the first time I've disagreed with Cyclopia about something :) Wnt (talk) 16:13, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
 * No, it is not our arbitrary statement. It is a statement that just follows what the majority of sources do. -- cyclopia <sup style="color:red;">speak! 16:33, 8 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Let's assume Wikipedia/Bing/Google/Yahoo etc. searches will find your article regardless of whether it's called "Cyclopia" or "Dr. PartyPooper" and regardless of whether the search term is "Cyclopia" or "Dr. PartyPooper". That's usually the case for medical articles with several possible names listed in the first sentence, so I presume it's so for people. Can you tell me what the benefit is to the reader in us naming the article "Dr. PartyPooper" please? (Bedtime here.)--Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 16:12, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
 * The benefit is that we are behaving neutrally, exactly as in article space -we do not make arbitrary assessment as long as possible, we follow what sources do. This is something we have to guarantee to our readers. That Google finds it either way is irrelevant -I'm sure it would pick it up even with a completely made-up title, if enough references to the real name are in the article. -- cyclopia <sup style="color:red;">speak! 16:33, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Sorry Cyclopia, I missed your response. You are equating behaving neutrally with slavish submission to an algorithm, and equating weighing the relevance of a subject's preference with arbitrary assessment. It is always a good thing to delegate decision-making to a simple algorithm when doing so can be relied upon to consistently come up with the right decision. But blindly following the formula in our naming policy when doing so results in a name that genuinely disrespects the subject is pretty poor behaviour. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 09:53, 13 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment - I never tried to invoke WP:BLP, because I think that is a weak argument on it's face. It doesn't matter that much if the Title is named HRC or HC. What does concern me is the amount of editors here so enraged that we have the article named HRC. Why was this move even initiated? There is absolutely no reason for it. WP:COMMONNAME was demonstrated as absolutely no reason to move the article. It was proven inside the RFC that those who wish to move the article because of this policy are voting under a false pretense that that is the common name, when it is definitely not. Now we actually have editors here arguing that WP:COMMONNAME trumps WP:BLP. Really? I have never heard anyone state or really believe that. WP:BLP trumps everything. Almost. Most of the time. I can understand editors being passionate about keeping the article titled as is, but I cannot understand the passion the other way around. Why in the Hell would anyone be passionate about moving the article? The results are the same, the article has been stably named since it was created in 2001. There is absolutely no real reason to move it. Therein lies the real problem here, and on Wikipedia. And those pushing, with passion to move the article, should be ashamed of themselves. Dave Dial (talk) 16:18, 8 April 2014 (UTC)


 * To illustrate the pitfalls of COMMONNAME, maybe I should mention a conundrum I was having recently while expanding Christopher Senyonjo. The most common and best known sources are international and well known and spell the name that way.  But when I search for "Ssenyonjo" the results are heavily enriched for sources inside Uganda.  Now a plain reading of COMMONNAME says stick with what the international press says; but saying that Associated Press is more important than a Ugandan newspaper strikes me as card-carrying cultural imperialism.  So what I did is dump the question on WikiProject Uganda, hoping they can explain the orthography, but so far I haven't heard back... Wnt (talk) 16:25, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
 * WP:COMMONNAME actually deals with the case: Ambiguous[6] or inaccurate names for the article subject, as determined in reliable sources, are often avoided even though they may be more frequently used by reliable sources. -- cyclopia <sup style="color:red;">speak! 16:37, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Yeah, but I don't think President Clinton fouled up when he gave an award under one S. I assume it must be some sort of variation in orthography, like Mohammed and Muhammad, with neither being "inaccurate". Wnt (talk) 16:46, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Then I don't understand your point. Associated Press or Ugandan newspapers are on approximately equal footing in this respect, so either the name is inaccurate, or we just go with the majority. I could understand accomodating the variant closest to the subject's language spelling, if you want. But this is beginning to stray beyond the real issue, which is accomodating subjects' wishes. -- cyclopia <sup style="color:red;">speak! 16:50, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
 * My point is only that in a case like this, I would be happy to settle the issue however the subject prefers, and to accept his authority on the issue. Please note I'm not suggesting slavish accommodation in the article text - I still want the real/birth name of Toure in that article, I still want article sections about Chelsea Manning's upbringing to say "he" and "Bradley".  It's only when Wikipedia editors have to stand on top of the pile of sources and choose one way and not the other that the subject is entitled to stand on top of us. Wnt (talk) 18:56, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Where there are two versions of an individual's name and one is used significantly more widely than the other, then Wikipedia will ordinarily use that version, except perhaps in extraordinary circumstances.

Where there are two versions of an individual's name and they are both used widely, with neither usage clearly predominating, then the individual's preference, if known, should be given significant weight.

In the case of a lesser-known person, contacting the person or his or her representative to ascertain his or her preference could be perceived as an invasion of privacy and should be avoided. However, if a preference is expressed in public, or via OTRS, or on-wiki, it can be given appropriate consideration. In the case of someone like Ms. Clinton, contacting his or her representative, while unnecessary, is harmless.

BLP subjects' wishes do not control our encyclopedic comment, as to article titles or any other matter, but the recurring shrieks that they must be consistently and uniformly ignored as a matter of principle demean the project. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:41, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
 * What is absolutely demeaning to the project and its credibility is bending our editorial process to accomodate a single person whim, biasing it. Either we violate WP:NPOV or we ignore the subject. There is no other way. This is a very fundamental matter of principle. -- cyclopia <sup style="color:red;">speak! 16:47, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
 * There is rarely a "POV" issue germane to an individual's name. (Yes, I can think of exceptions; I said "rarely," not "never.") If I were notable enough to have a Wikipedia article, and I expressed a preference as to whether I preferred "Ira Matetsky" or "Ira B. Matetsky" or "Ira Brad Matetsky", I would not be expressing a "point of view" in any meaningful sense, nor would the article become "biased" if my preference were accommodated. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:50, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I fail to see any NPOV issues. By using the name that Clinton has asked that the media use, whose POV are we violating?  Konveyor   Belt  16:52, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Nonsense. If you express a preference, you automatically express a point of view. If all sources call you Ira Matetsky and you prefer Ira Brad Matetsky, and we comply with the latter, then your preference is trumping all other sources. Therefore there is a bias -we have chosen one source upon all others with no encyclopedic justification. Maybe a bias we don't particularly care about, but the principle stands: we introduced a distortion from the NPOV principle.-- cyclopia <sup style="color:red;">speak! 16:54, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
 * My question still stands: Whose POV are we trampling here, if we use the name that she prefers?  Konveyor   Belt  16:59, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I am not sure of what you mean by "trampling a POV". If we use the name that she prefers, anyway, we put her POV as arbitrarily more important than the one of the majority of RS, on the topic of "what should I be called".-- cyclopia <sup style="color:red;">speak! 17:07, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Your not responding to what Brad wrote. He noted the title is well sourced. There is nothing arbitrary about following sources and respecting a person's name for themselves.  NPOV and BLP agree on this.  Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:22, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
 * If the title is already following WP:COMMONNAME, there is nothing to discuss about. The arbitrary thing is in not following the bulk of sources. Nobody denies the desired name can be sourced; the question is if it is the most common name sources use; that is, the one where sources have consensus about. Disregarding that is arbitrary and POV. -- cyclopia <sup style="color:red;">speak! 19:45, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
 * @ cyclopia - re "there is nothing to discuss about. The arbitrary thing is in not following the bulk of sources" - Hear hear! NickCT (talk) 19:49, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
 * No. Commaname is not written categorically nor mechanically. This is not an issue of "bulk" -- it is an issue of reasoned judgement about high quality biography sources concerning a thing that matters to a living person. Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:58, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

If the subject prefers that the Wikipedia article have a particular title, then that's one thing. But, if the subject generally prefers for all public mention of her to use that same title, then that's another thing entirely. Do we even know which of these two the subject has expressed a preference to Jimbo about? I'm not saying that we should give much heed either way, but the first preference (i.e. Wikipedia title preference) seems much weaker than the second (i.e. general name preference).Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:11, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
 * There is nothing at WP:AT or WP:BLP that even hints that subject preference should be given any consideration whatsoever in choosing a title. We choose titles based on the five WP:CRITERIA.  We can argue about naturalness, recognizability, precision and consistency, perhaps, but any differences between HC and HRC with respect to these four criteria are really minor.  However, HC clearly complies with WP:CONCISION better than HRC.  There can be no question about this whatsoever.  It's the only policy based tie-breaker that applies in this case.  I call it the WP:Concision razor.  Let's just use it and move on.  --B2C 06:11, 9 April 2014 (UTC)


 * B2C: But there is question around the application of the concision criterion, since (for one thing) conciseness is different from mere brevity.


 * However &mdash; I think a more significant point is that common name (which relates to the naturalness criterion) does not clearly favor HC, and indeed arguably favors HRC. Many of those who assert that HC is the common name rest their determination in large measure on Google frequency counts; such a count may favor HC, but it's simply one metric and is very different from saying that reliable sources clearly favor it.  To take just one example, WP:AT suggests looking to other "quality encyclopedias" as an aid in choosing between alternative names... and encyclopedias like Britannica, World Book, etc. prefer HRC.  In fact, among the most reliable and relevant sources to this subject &mdash; ranging from the US government to the Clinton Foundation to major encyclopedias to Hillary herself (as Jimbo reports) &mdash; the HRC form is preferred, and even more so in many sources when the subject is treated biographically.  That being the case, one simply cannot make the case that HC is clearly the common name in this context... and can make a compelling case that HRC is the common name, as preferred by many (and notably the most significant/relevant) reliable sources.  ╠╣uw [ talk ]  12:46, 9 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Anythingyouwant makes a related point to one I made earlier on this page: if her people thought she was being asked what her WP page should be titled, in answering they might have made an assumption that Wikipedia articles in general should be titled by the subject's full name. WP:COMMONNAME is somewhat counter-intuitive to non-Wikipedians I suggest. Or maybe they didn't. We don't know. That's one of the problems with using WP:OR. DeCausa (talk) 09:09, 9 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia policy should not be counter-intuitive, as it makes the project less accessible. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:56, 9 April 2014 (UTC)


 * DeCausa, you're darn right that "common name" is counter-intuitive to regular people - but doesn't that tell you something? B2C, in regard to "concision", the two forms of the name are not equivalent - the longer form emphasizes her independent identity in addition to her married identity and the shorter form does not.  Anythingyouwant, I don't think there's a confusion in her office's response.  There's a large body of recent data regarding how she prefers her name - over 12,000 documents at the Department of State website, and "hillary rodham clinton" produces 10,900 hits there while "hillary clinton" -rodham produces 1,320 hits.  That's 89 percent using the longer form, which is about as consistent as government work gets. Wasted Time R (talk) 10:35, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
 * One thing it tells me is that if I was disatisfied by it's counter-intuitiveness, I'd go to the talk page of WP:AT and argue for it's change there rather than argue for something that contradicts it on a specific article. DeCausa (talk) 11:10, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I didn't mean to suggest any confusion in her office's response, only confusion at this end regarding what question was asked. For purposes of internal State Department matters, she apparent preferred HRC to HC, and preferred Secretary Clinton to both HC and HRC combined.  This debate is so Wikipedia, I guess maybe the last such kerfuffle for me.Anythingyouwant (talk) 13:48, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm reminded of this Monty Python sketch for some reason. (That's going to cause some confusion. Mind if we call you Bruce?) --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 08:49, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

so fix it
There is no absolute right or wrong at Wikipedia - we choose things, including titles, by consensus. As has been mentioned, when the Wikipedia community has voted en masse re article titles, the preferences of the subject have been rejected again and again by the broad community since this is not part of article titling policy and our titles serve the readers not the subjects. A great example is Manning - in the first move commonname prevailed even though the subjects preference was clearly stated. In the second move, many people who voted for Bradley voted for Chelsea, again based on commonname and the careful analysis of sources changing that I and many other editors participated in - note that between the two moves subject preference had remained constant, while commonname had changed. There was however in that second debate NO consensus that subject preference should be a deciding factor. That said, consensus can change, so instead of engaging in ongoing debate here, why not form a working group, draft a community wide RFC and attempt to change article titling policy to formally make subject preference - whether subject is a country, a tribe, a city government, the owners of a landmark or a person, as a formal factor taken into account that carries weight (and maybe policy would be different depending on the type of entity in question) If worded well I would support such a change and I reckon many HRC supporters would welcome it as well. But, if we ask the community, as we have done in the past, and the community says 'no', then either consensus is wrong or supporters of subject preference are (wrong being wiki-speak for 'has consensus') --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 10:16, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
 * "Our Titles serve readers" - serving readers means informing them of the subject - there can be little doubt that a person's name that is well sourced in biography sources and that the subject prefers serves readers by informing them about the subject.  As for the Manning close: "...the supporters make a good case that we should have a good reason for disregarding the subject's stated wishes. A lack of reliable sourcing would be, per COMMONNAME, a good reason to overrule an article subject's preferences, but it appears, based on the evidence presented in this move request, that the reliable sources have generally (although certainly not unanimously) gotten on board with Manning's request to be referred to as Chelsea." (emphasis added)


 * The thing that seems most unaccountable and even disrespectful is the number of !voters who reason: 'this is how I know the subject' and 'this is how my country knows the subject ... I therefore prefer my choice for the title we give her biography, which is my preferred version of her name.' --Alanscottwalker (talk) 11:02, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Alan even though one of the closers called you out on this you persist in pushing this interpretation, so allow me to paste my own quote where it's laid out quite clearly:" There was a fair amount of discussion, from both sides, on the applicability of our biographies of living persons policy on a potential move, but no clear consensus on whether BLP concerns were applicable to the naming dispute. Indeed, several of those who supported the move to "Chelsea Manning" explicitly rejected BLP as grounds for a move. It is clear that there is a division among editors over whether, and under what circumstance, our BLP policy mandates that we follow an article subject's wishes regarding their chosen name." That is the clearest statement of 'there is no consensus on this issue' that I can imagine.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 11:16, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Even though what? I said nothing about "mandating", so the irrelevance of your quote is plain.  I have merely pointed out that the closer's took the preference of the subject into account because:  we should have a good reason for disregarding the subject's stated wishes. Alanscottwalker (talk) 11:31, 9 April 2014 (UTC)


 * ASW, What I find frustrating about the RfC is that what you have written is perfectly reasonable and would be a perfectly sensible policy, and I would even be quite happy to support that policy if it were put forward at the talk page at WP:AT as a change. But it isn't the policy we have, and as Obiwankenobi has said has in fact been rejected by the community. There seems to be an insinuation rom some who oppose the page move that there's a sexist/mysoginist agenda going on amongst those that support it. I find that really irritating. My objection to the "oppose" point of view, fundamentally, is that it seems to me to rest on inventing policy reasons to achieve a particular result in a particular case. Otherwise, I don't really care about the name of this particlar article, frankly. DeCausa (talk) 11:25, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
 * What's distracting here is that going by the name the subject wants isn't actually BLP, as evidenced by the renames of landmark buildings. The subject simply happens to be the best authority on her own name. Wnt (talk) 11:30, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
 * @DeCausa - re "There seems to be an insinuation rom some who oppose the page move that there's a sexist/mysoginist agenda going on amongst those that support it. I find that really irritating. " - Ditto. What's sad is that Jimbo partly supported this insinuation above with his "I tend to agree with this point." comment. Those on the BLP side of this debate should remember that calling others "sexist" or "anti-trans" or whatever because they're raising inconvenient points of policy is sorta obnoxious, impolite and also distracts us from persecuting people who actually are sexist.
 * @Wnt - "The subject simply happens to be the best authority on her own name." - Sure, but is a subject the best authority on what others call her? Because what others call someone or something is how we figure out titles on WP. NickCT (talk) 12:15, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
 * DeCausa: I don't know what insinuation you have gotten, although surely 'we don't care what the subject thinks' will likely lead to all kinds of conclusions about people who claim to be writing her biography.  My point is 'we don't care what the subject thinks' is not mandated by policy, but commonsense, in the form common decency, dignity and respect are actually policy values, including in WP:Consensus.  There is no policy on the Pedia that is read or applied in isolation from other policy. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:42, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Alanscottwalker - I'm not sure anyone is arguing that what the subject thinks is entirely irrelevant, as much as we're just arguing that what others (i.e. by "others" I mean RS) think is considerably more relevant. NickCT (talk) 13:05, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
 * If that were so, then they would not keep saying it, nor would they take issue with what Brad and Jimbo have said. Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:02, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

When there are multiple names for a subject, all of them fairly common, and the most common has problems, it is perfectly reasonable to choose one of the others. This has always said it all. WP:COMMONNAME has never meant "Only use the absolute most common name always". When there is more than one commonly used name, we can choose amongst them, generally but not always using the most common. It is misreading the policy to insist it demands the most common name, when it only generally prefers. If an article title has a problem in that it would be perceived by many as an avoidable snub, then it simply has a problem that another possibly less common (but still commonly used) name might avoid. <span style="font-family:Futura, Helvetica, _sans;color:#01110f;font-size:66%;">__ E L A Q U E A T E  13:45, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
 * @<span style="font-family:Futura, Helvetica, _sans;color:#01110f;font-size:66%;">__ E L A Q U E A T E  - Congrats on an excellent reference to policy! Glancing at it briefly, I don't like it much because the phrase "has problems" seems tremendously ambiguous, to the point that it should probably be void for vagueness. Is it a problem that a subject of a biography doesn't like his/her commonname? NickCT (talk) 14:52, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Elaqueate noted that things sometimes have multiple common names, which is the same thing policy and common sense notes. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:02, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I think deciding what is a "problem" that would provoke using a less common of the common names is something that is usually decided by consensus on a case-by-case basis, or by a naming convention. Most of the time we choose the most common name. Sometimes there's a subjective wrinkle we can discuss and make a decision about. This is not a deficiency in the system! There are many examples of articles that sit at second- or third-most common names, and the spirit of Wikipedia policy has not been betrayed. We currently treat "annoying our editors who enjoy Royal traditions" as a "problem" to avoid for our naming of titled subjects, and frequently use a less-than-most-common name for an article title. We also navigate the subjectivities of who is "totally famous" and who is "not-quite-that-famous" case-by-case without any bright-line rules in policy. If people want to have a discussion about whether there's a problem or not in a specific article, that's one thing. But there's nothing in policy that forces our hand to always choose the most common name and never consider anything else. If two names are common, and there's no harm to verifiability and neutrality, of course we can choose the one that has the least net problems, regardless of where those problems arise from. But people shouldn't point to policy as demanding a single outcome.<span style="font-family:Futura, Helvetica, _sans;color:#01110f;font-size:66%;">__ E L A Q U E A T E  15:29, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
 * @<span style="font-family:Futura, Helvetica, _sans;color:#01110f;font-size:66%;">__ E L A Q U E A T E  - re "there's nothing in policy that forces our hand to always choose the most common name and never consider anything else" - Ok. Granted. But your answer seems to be, "It's subjective. We just have to see if there's consensus on whether it's a "problem" or not". That seems like a poor answer, b/c it doesn't seem to offer concrete guidance. "Wikipedia prefers the name that is most commonly used" is concrete guidance, which can be based on objectively measurable criteria.
 * re "annoying our editors who enjoy Royal traditions" as a "problem" - Ah yes. I've been involved in those debate before. Frankly, I think there is less of an issue there, b/c there is a specific policy spelling out an exception to WP:COMMONNAME (i.e. NCROY). It's OK if we say "There are exceptions to COMMONNAME", just so long as we spell out what the exceptions are.
 * re ""totally famous" and who is "not-quite-that-famous" case-by-case without any bright-line rules in policy." Again, there are slew of policies out there which offer guidance on figuring out which politician, scientist or teacher is notable.
 * I don't think the commonnamers in this debate are "demanding a single outcome" as much as we're just demanding that you justify why the usual outcome shouldn't be observed here. NickCT (talk) 16:29, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
 * There is no "one-rule-fits-all". You seem to be saying that we should ignore policy when you feel it asks us to make subjective decisions by consensus (as we do all the time, in all of your examples). This is backwards. There is no guidance that consistently and definitively proves someone famous enough for things like WP:BLP1E across any conceivable scenario. Guidance points the way, it doesn't hold our hand through every borderline case. Some cases gain a form of non-contested consensus almost immediately, others take work, but there's no edit that survives on policy alone. We often accommodate the subject when it makes little difference one way or the other. And it's silly to call a side "commonnamers". I'm in full agreement with WP:COMMONNAME, as it is written, just not as an oversimplified and patently untrue "we always use the most common name". It would be a different story if someone was asking to make a change to hide a damaging association, or to misrepresent the subject of an article, but if it's two names of roughly the same recognizability, clarity, and use, then it's silly to put a misinterpretation of the rule over an actual living person. The policy guides us to think of it as: All other things being roughly equal, use the one with the least overall problems, even if you as an individual editor don't have a problem with either name. <span style="font-family:Futura, Helvetica, _sans;color:#01110f;font-size:66%;">__ E L A Q U E A T E   19:22, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't see how you water down the policy to it being merely being as you describe it in your last sentence. Commonname is quite clear. It says that there are problem situations where it would be a good idea to use one of the other common names. And it states what those other problems are: ambiguity, vulgarity, neutrality etc (but of course on neutrality it points to a specific policy solutuion in the subsequent section). Now I'm not claiming it's an exhaustive list, but it certainly needs to be analagous to one of the stated "problems" and the one thing they all have in common is that they are blatant and obvious problems. Subject preference is a completely different kettle of fish. You can't use that narrow and obvious category of exceptions to just say "all things being equal" we'll use the commonest. DeCausa (talk) 19:38, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
 * When all other things are roughly equal, but one name has problems, use the commonly used name that has the least amount of problems. Yep. That's what's advised for that uncommon case. Not all cases, but cases like this. I'm not watering down a thing. People shouldn't rely on WP:COMMONNAME and ignore WP:COMMON. One scenario has recognizability, common use, neutrality etc. So does the other. The only real difference is one could be irritating to the subject. This isn't a case where we're sacrificing anything at all by leaving it at the status quo. Not a thing. That means one scenario has clear benefit. Clear benefit to the encyclopedia outweighs arguably misguided rule interpretation. Even mildly disrespecting people in service to a policy when there is no net benefit to the encyclopedia in terms of verifiability or neutrality is a problem. Editorial discretion is supposed to be used in these border cases where one choice provides benefit and the other doesn't.<span style="font-family:Futura, Helvetica, _sans;color:#01110f;font-size:66%;">__ E L A Q U E A T E  21:27, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
 * And, to put it even more simply, this comment by Newyorkbrad is the most lucid statement based on common sense in the whole discussion.<span style="font-family:Futura, Helvetica, _sans;color:#01110f;font-size:66%;">__ E L A Q U E A T E  21:38, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Yep, what Brad said makes sense to me. And maybe one day the community will come round to that point of view and adopt it. Till then.... DeCausa (talk) 21:46, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
 * @Alanscottwalker - Not sure what your point is. I'm not arguing that HC (a.k.a HRC) doesn't have multiple common names. HRC might be common, but HC is the most common. My question was, what's the problem with the most common name? NickCT (talk) 15:32, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
 * See, you just seem to keep saying that the commoname the subject prefers doesn't matter, when there is no reason in policy or in sense, as a matter of our encyclopedic purpose, why it should not do so: 'What, so and so, is your problem with me refering to you different from how you say, even though many sources do refer to you that way (and its educational to do so) -- I don't want to, it's not what I prefer' -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:46, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
 * @Alanscottwalker - There is a most commonname (i.e. HC), and then is less common commonname (i.e. HRC). If you want you want to use HRC you have to reasonably demonstrate there is a problem with the most commonname. Saying "HC prefers HRC" is not in my mind (or in mind of many others) demonstrating a problem. It's not about what I want/prefer or don't want/prefer. It's about having a rule we can stick to (i.e. stick to the most commonname), and observing that rule. NickCT (talk) 16:41, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
 * No. It's making fetishism of a "rule we can stick to," (often to the exclusion of all other policy) when it is what you prefer, and when in fact it's not a rule we always stick to, across the pedia. As anyone can see, a "problem" arises whenever the multiple commonname exists and the subject states a preference -- it does not arise, otherwise. Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:00, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
 * @Alanscottwalker - re "not a rule we always stick" - We try to always stick to it. When it's not observed there are generally policies why and when WP:COMMONNAME doesn't apply (i.e. WP:NCROY). Trying to make and observe clear rules help us avoid silly debates. Like this one.
 * re "(often to the exclusion of all other policy)" - We're not excluding other policies. What other policies are we explicitly excluding? You are explicitly excluding the "Wikipedia prefers the name that is most commonly used" portion of COMMONNAME. What am I explicitly excluding? No vague references to WP:BLP please. Quote chapter and verse.
 * re "a "problem" arises whenever the multiple commonname exists" - There is no problem is one name is clearly the most common name, as is the case here. A subject stating they prefer an alternative to the most common name is not a problem. NickCT (talk) 17:17, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Huh? What debate is avoided?  None.  As for "the name that is most commonly used", I merely recognize, as does policy, that that does not readily occur sometimes (creating a problem), and then you want us to turn to Wikipedians, and say 'which do you prefer, please vote?'  The fact that that just looks ridiculous is not lost on me, or others, when the same people say, 'oh, no, the biographical subject's thoughts on this do not matter to us, but what I want does' Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:06, 9 April 2014 (UTC)


 * As I argued in the discussion itself, I find it very hard to disregard WP:BLP in such a sensitive area. It does strike me as WP:SYSTEMIC BIAS, as I said in the discussion. A woman has purposely chosen to retain her FAMILY NAME, to maintain her independent identity. In fact, in a a New York Times articlementioned in the discussion, she even mentioned that she had felt terrible discrimination during the Arkansas governor's election because of it. Many editors have tried to downplay it as a 'middle name', but no one would try to assert that a man's family name was merely a 'middle name'. I can't possibly think of a good reason to maintain position whereby a woman cannot choose to use her family name, but instead must be stripped of it, and identified her husband's name. All because a group of 'editors' consisting mostly of men who do not understand or comprehend why she might want to not be nothing more than a chattel. She has a right to be known by her family name, just as anyone does. It was the name on her birth certificate, and it may well be her legal name (see the New York Times article linked during the discussion). That's not even tackling the 'common name' arguments, most of which seem to fall flat. Even if 'Hillary Clinton' was more common, which I doubt, it might well be because of the very systemic biases she mentions in the New York Times article. What I mean to say is that we cannot disregard WP:BLP. We cannot cause harm to people (for no good reason), nor strip them of their identity. To do so does not sound neutral, nor appropriate. RGloucester  — ☎ 05:29, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
 * More vague references to "harm" and WP:BLP. More unsubstantiated allusions to sexism.
 * No one is disregarding WP:BLP. If you or anyone could give a solid argument for how calling Hillary Clinton by her commonname causes her real and tangible "harm", you'd probably have a leg to stand on. NickCT (talk) 19:27, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
 * As I said, I do not agree that 'Hillary Clinton' is the more common name. Regardless of that, it causes emotional harm. How would you like to be stripped of your family name, and have it replaced with that of your spouse, with no choice in the matter? Even if you had expressly chosen to use your family name, and consider it part of your identity? Do we really have the right to strip people of the very essence of their identity, that is, their name? RGloucester  — ☎ 20:22, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Oh, come of it. That hyperbole is just silly. Even if it is true she prefers HRC, she undoubtedly has used HC herself on multiple occasions, including on her website. Give the hysterical rhetoric a rest. DeCausa (talk) 21:14, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
 * She has admitted to feeling under pressure with regard to her name. She has admitted that she felt discriminated against for having retained her name. Read the New York Times article. Systemic bias is clearly present. Furthermore, the context of an encyclopaedia article is very different from that of a campaign rally, and warrants a different approach. RGloucester  — ☎ 21:27, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
 * My comment was unconnected to the article title. It is ridiculous drivel to speak of "stripping" her of the "very essence of [her] identity" when she herself frequently uses HC. The fact that she may or may not use HRC more or prefer it is irrelevant to pointing out the language you have used is risible. DeCausa (talk) 21:35, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I was referring in general to the significance of names, not hers in particular. Her occasional use of 'Hillary Clinton' (despite her expressed preference, and effort to retain the Rodham despite societal norms contrary) can be indicative of societal pressure. However, she has the right to make that choice, which name to use in what context, but we don't. RGloucester  — ☎ 21:48, 10 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Ms. Clinton can call herself anything she wants. What is important to us is that the article name matches the expected name for the topic as well as practicable. Of course, our very sensible WP:COMMONNAME was thrown under the bus in the Private Manning case in the name of political correctness, so I have no doubt that the BLP conservatives will make a three months stink about this naming question as well. How many people search Name A? How many search Name B? Which name is recommended in AP Style? Those are the questions we should be resolving. Carrite (talk) 22:20, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
 * What is actually important is that, we are writing biography, here, of someone whose human dignity should be respected in every editorial decision, and referring to someone by the name they choose -- benefits readers who come here to learn about that person, and it is a simple matter of human dignity. Or as you suggest, we could actually go for political correctness and vote on the most popular name in a very bureaucratic manner, because some apparently need heedless rulz, instead of judgement, knowledge of sources, educational focus, and respect. Note, of course, that the argued reason for needing said rule's following is not at all important to finding the article (or anything really), but so what, right.Alanscottwalker (talk) 23:58, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
 * @ RGloucester  - re "As I said, I do not agree that 'Hillary Clinton' is the more common name.". You see. This is what I love about you BLPers. You just make random assertions that you haven't researched and really have no clue about. OK. Let's examine this statement. You get almost 50 times as many news sources using Hillary Clinton versus those using HRC. "Hillary Clinton" generates 100 times more web hits (ref).
 * Do you have any basis for challenging the assertion that HC is the commonname? NickCT (talk) 14:22, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Commonname recommends looking at various other reliable sources when choosing between alternative names &mdash; sources like other encyclopedias (Britannica, World Book, etc., all of which favor HRC), major organizations (White House, Congress, Library of Congress, State Department, Thomas, etc., all of which favor HRC), and so on. It's true that HRC doesn't win on raw frequency counts, but that's not the only thing we consider.  ╠╣uw [ talk ]  10:53, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
 * The discussion is over. Plenty of arguments to that point have been presented in the discussion, and plenty of reasons have been put forth as to why a Google search like that is not the best determining factor. This is a pointless rehashing. Let's wait. RGloucester  — ☎ 14:47, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
 * @ RGloucester - Ok. That's fine. I am curious to know whether you have any evidence to support your assertion though, or whether it was based more on "intuition".... NickCT (talk) 15:30, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Since we have a nice panel of administrators to determine the result, we can allow them to decide whether there was evidence or not. I'm glad a panel was requested for that reason. RGloucester  — ☎ 15:33, 11 April 2014 (UTC)