User talk:Jimbo Wales/Archive 192

The Signpost: 12 August 2015

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:50, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Seeking your and wider input on Community portal RFC
Hi Jimbo, would you and your talk page stalkers please express opinions at Wikipedia talk:Community portal? Thanks in advance. EllenCT (talk) 15:28, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

The Atlantic magazine on paid editing at WP
A well-done long read on the paid editing situation is HERE. Carrite (talk) 15:12, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
 * It is long, and it is good. Special kudos to James Heilman.-- S Philbrick (Talk)  02:47, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Indeed. This is the kind of thing we should be concerned about, not fake controversies ginned up by trolls and griefers to agitate the gullible and easily panicked. Prioryman (talk) 11:40, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Well perhaps if you had not been shamelessly shilling on behalf of your cronies at WMUK with clear COI-issues the Gibraltarpedia issue would not have been such a thing. But your above comment still shows you fail to understand why people had a problem with it, so I dont know why your brought it up except to troll yourself. Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:32, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

It is indeed a good article. Skip the 1st set of bullet points if you’re read it. I’d love to hear ’s reaction. I only have one quibble with the article.
 * A specific well-documented example is given where undisclosed paid editors (UPEs) inserted misleading info about their employer’s product and a related medical procedure. This apparently ineffective procedure costs Medicare $1 billion each year.  Doc James kept the article on track despite the paid editing and a high pressure campaign against him.


 * UPE editing has been discouraged since at least 2006. The ToU were changed at the request of volunteer editors and the results have been good, but undisclosed paid editing is lucrative and continues with UPEs stating that they refuse to follow our rules.


 * UPEs distract editors from more important work, make the community less friendly, and make Wikipedia less credible.


 * There is some disagreement on how widespread it is, but one UPE says it is rampant.

So far the article looks like it is saying something like “UPEs are an unmitigated disaster for Wikipedia” but in a couple of paragraphs near the end it looks like the author tries to add a false balance. It’s the tired, old argument that everybody has a bias, so why are UPEs any different?

I’d like to address this question.
 * Business use of UPEs is a systematic bias that always goes in one direction: Products are always safe, good quality, revolutionary, or even better. Scandals never happen.  Businesses keep the environment clean, pay their taxes, and support the community.
 * While most of this might apply to most businesses most of the time, having a constant drumbeat of UPEs putting in this material fundamentally distorts our coverage of business, including the business of medicine.
 * Business people have many means to get out their messages, that most other people don’t have. They can pay for advertisements in media that accept paid advertisements; they can issue press releases and talk with journalists; they can talk with their representatives in government and to regulators and work with industry associations.  All they really need to do to get into Wikipedia is to convince a reliable source to print their claims in such a way that 1 or 2 volunteers consider it important enough to put it into an article.
 * UPEs just don’t quit - they try to take ownership of an article, they will argue forever. You just can’t have a good faith discussion with somebody who is paid to have a particular point of view.


 * Government use of UPEs is an even worse systematic bias: All governments, no matter where they are, try their absolute best to serve the people - and succeed! Their political opponents are misguided at best.

So UPEs change Wikipedia from a trusted source of information with some random biases, to being a corporate shill and a political propagandist favoring those in power.

That’s why we need to strictly enforce our rules on paid and COI editing.

Smallbones( smalltalk ) 14:41, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I think the piece did a really good job. With respect to the specific case in question, having "representatives" from an 28 billion USD company email 300 of your collegues to enform them how misguided you are is disconcerting.
 * How big is the issue of undisclosed paid editing? We do not know.
 * Is it a risk to the reputation of Wikipedia? Yes definitely.
 * Can we do more to try to address it? Once again I would say yes and I believe we should.
 * Some see the issue of unpaid advocacy as just as bad. However just because other problems exist does not mean we should ignore all problems. The issue of unpaid advocacy is harder to deal with I agree. However, it may occur in both directions well paid advocacy typically only occurs in one.
 * Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:02, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I oppose all paid editing. It creates a disparity of motive between the paid editor and the volunteers who make up most of the Wikipedia community, and it creates a burden on volunteers to check content for neutrality and subtle bias when somebody else is receiving compensation for putting the bias in. Everything about paid editing is anthema to the principles of Wikipedia. Guy (Help!) 19:08, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Excellent article. Peter Damian (talk) 18:35, 13 August 2015 (UTC)


 * It was a very good article and I agree with Doc James and Smallbones. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 19:52, 14 August 2015 (UTC)


 * I also agree with Doc James and Smallbones. --Rubbish computer 23:49, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Half a million and counting - Future Perfect at Sunrise says it's "unbefu**ingleavable"
An editor recently reported that the above had blocked 284,000 people in Hackney giving no reason and continued to give no reason when WP:ADMINACCT was invoked. Now he has blocked a further 246,300 people in the neighbouring borough of Tower Hamlets citing "Long - Term abuse". Of course there is no LTA report and no long - term abuse - this is all in his mind. I do hope you will step in, because I don't want to see the Project being brought into disrepute on account of this. All the best. 86.149.13.138 (talk) 15:45, 17 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Did you try making an unblock request? Chillum 15:48, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Also, it's pretty hard for me to comment when you've given me no actual information with which I might look into this for myself.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 15:48, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Jimbo.  I'll ask one of the readers to make an  unblock request and we'll see what  happens. 86.149.13.138 (talk) 15:50, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
 * These ANIs are relevant; IP 6 month block for removing vandalism, Long term block of all Hackney public libraries and Just another Hackney thread. Black Kite (talk) 15:57, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Also, Sockpuppet investigations/Vote (X) for Change, and User_talk:Jimbo_Wales/Archive_189 JoeSperrazza (talk) 16:03, 17 August 2015 (UTC)


 * How many times are we going to let this troll post the same nonsense? I just need to know how big a pack of popcorn to buy. Guy (Help!) 16:22, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't think anyone would disagree that engaging the sock of a banned user such as this is a waste of time. Putting aside the problem in getting such abusers to stop, at issue is that this particular banned user uses a wide range of public IPs in the London area (not all marked as public access). While his behavior is obvious when you know what to look for, not everyone is familiar with him. Tagging his IPs helps. Perhaps it is time for an entry at Long-term abuse. JoeSperrazza (talk) 16:38, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Jimbo, what you see in the threads has been doctored - Future Perfect at Sunrise removed the OPs' responses before sending the sections to archive.  Even the original SPI was oversighted so that the closing administrator didn't have the respondent's evidence before him when he came to his decision. 86.149.13.138 (talk) 16:41, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Illustrating what the OP says above, JzG removed his/her post (above) and Future Perfect at Sunrise blocked. 80.229.188.14 (talk) 17:21, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
 * The irony is that if s/he stopped disrupting Wikipedia there would be no need for any blocks at all. Then the library users of Hackney/Tower Hamlets/wherever could gain their Wikipedia access back. Black Kite (talk) 18:11, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
 * You see how cleverly Black Kite builds up the thread without the OP's comments.  You could call that a constructive personal attack.   His previous username, EliminatorJR, was apt.   His allegation is also a personal attack - as Risker says, "diffs, or it didn't happen". 188.220.111.208 (talk) 19:08, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Kinda ironic you'd quote Risker, since you yourself have provided no diffs this thread. Maybe if you realised that you're not wanted here, Vote (X), and stopped coming around, then maybe your neighbours and other locals might be able to edit Wikipedia. You aren't JarlaxleArtemis and you'll never be him - frankly, you don't have the guts. — Jeremy  v^_^v  Bori! 19:30, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Terms of Use
Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents is a discussion centering on the amount of detail a person who may have a COI is obliged to post. The "terms of use" states "employer, client and affiliation" but all the material from WMF (including its FAQ) basically treats that catenation as s single entry - that is one should disclose the relevant single datum, not every single datum pertaining to the editor.

In the case at hand, the person works on behalf of clients of a one-person agency - and identifying a one person agency basically identifies the single person. The WMF FAQ states it is sufficient to name the company on whose behalf the person is editing, but some in this discussion suggest that it is essential to identify even a single specific person if they are in any way connected (i.e. the company is already named, but is the name of the person who is the agent required?  and are "affiliations" (which seems vague here) "required"?.

My opinion, and it is opinion, is that seeking specific individual names is intrinsically a violation of WP:OUTING and as such can not be required, and, per the WMF FAQ and the WP guidelines, is not "required." Other opinions are welcome, but if we allow outing of any individual, we shall have allowed outing of all individuals. We can not be "partly protective of rights." Cheers. Collect (talk) 14:05, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I disagree very strongly. "Outing" is obviously not the right terminology to use here, and our policy on "outing" should be seriously reconsidered and adapted in light of the many problems that it causes.  If you are a paid advocate, you must disclose that fact and in order to earn the trust of the community you must disclose whatever information is necessary for the community to be able to understand and monitor your activities on the site.  Anything less risks trouble.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 13:14, 19 August 2015 (UTC)


 * I agree: even if a person is, say, a paid advocate editor who continuously pushes a POV to the point that they are eventually blocked after sufficient warnings, outing is not necessary, or acceptable. Rubbish computer 14:09, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Unpaid editors who obsessively push POV edits are in that boat too - in fact most of the editors who abuse Wikipedia deny any COI whatsoever. The prime problem with many of the paid editors has been a tendency to include totally worthless trivia in articles, like a full list of every model number of their patented gizmo.   The other issue has been with regard to editors who fail to understand the difference between opinion and simple fact - "X Corp's Gizmo(TM) is the world's most advanced" is the type of edit which is a sore thumb.  Collect (talk) 14:23, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I see what you mean about unpaid POV-pushing editors. I have seen content like that last point many times, which is something I like fixing: it is very annoying and often stays on articles for many months. Rubbish computer 15:04, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

I don't mean the identity, or suspected identity, of editors shouldn't be shared among Oversight or involved Administrators, I think nobody should have it made public, so everyone knows. --Rubbish computer 00:41, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

This has been finally decided after  took the dispute to the WMF, after taking it to ANI, and various talkpages. The terms of use stand as written. If businesses want to do business on Wikipedia, the editor they pay has to disclose who they are. This makes perfect sense to me as an American - businesses anywhere in the US have to disclose who they are when asked, though like the ToU the requirements aren't drastic, usually only being in "fictional name" laws (aka "doing business as" laws). Isn't this the same everywhere? Is there a place in the world where you can legally do business without disclosing who you are? Smallbones( smalltalk ) 21:16, 18 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Regarding my case specifically, please accept my apologies for any and all conduct violations. I have just volunteered for a topic ban, provided additional disclosure, discontinued my financial relationship and walked away. CorporateM (Talk) 21:54, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 19 August 2015

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:02, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Cracked.com article on Wikipedia
From cracked.com: Wikipedia Hates Women: 4 Dark Sides of The Site We All Use. (Article author self-identifies as User:Morwen) --Guy Macon (talk) 18:47, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Regarding the "deployed member of the military" mentioned in the article, see Requests for arbitration/Husnock. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:11, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Makes a fair point about agenda editors, including the "traditional counties" loons. The issue of trans people is a festering sore. I don't know when the queer-bashers started getting any traciton here, they used to get short shrift back in the day and should still. Guy (Help!) 21:55, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

An impressive and moving account of what Wikipedia has become. I've yet to see any plausible solution to this mess, or any will to find one; without it, I expect swift and firm measures from both the US government and the EU. MarkBernstein (talk) 23:06, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
 * What can the US government and EU do? There are plausible solutions, and the Foundation have been championing a few of them, but there are a lot of active measures which could be taken but aren't. EllenCT (talk) 00:39, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

This harassment is terrible to hear about. --Rubbish computer 23:45, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

I do think that anyone leading off an article with the 9% women editors figure, which is not only years out of date, but was demonstrated to be wrong shortly after it was published, seriously damages their credibility as a retailer of fact. Regardless of how many Star Trek reference works they own. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 00:03, 16 August 2015 (UTC).


 * What is the current correct figure? 13%? I'm not sure it's a substantial difference in the context. EllenCT (talk) 00:39, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
 * We're probably somewhere in the general ballpark of 80:20 these days. WMF is years late in spending some of its money to study the question. Carrite (talk) 05:39, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
 * They repeatedly study the question carefully, but they sit on the answers for more than half a year, when they even release them at all. EllenCT (talk) 14:25, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
 * It's a tricky question - and the answer doesn't really tell us an awful lot - but yes it appears to be in the low to mid 20s.  All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 00:25, 17 August 2015 (UTC).
 * Link? EllenCT (talk) 01:48, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
 * User_talk:Jimbo_Wales/Archive_185 All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 01:23, 20 August 2015 (UTC).

I think that Wikipedia has some serious problems related to women, but while it may have been to make a point, I find the title Wikipedia hates women to be an exaggeration, and quite insulting. Some people genuinely hate women, unfortunately, but this cannot be applied to Wikipedia as a whole. --Rubbish computer 00:22, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I suggest the people who genuinely hate women stopped getting "short shrift" as User:JzG put it above, about the same time as the queer-bashers. EllenCT (talk) 00:39, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I hope this hasn't occurred: this is terrible if it has. I can't say either way about how editors who harass others are treated, as I don't really know. Rubbish computer 01:22, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Wouldn't it be great if Jimbo started taking a stand for reform? One can hope. EllenCT (talk) 01:25, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I hope he does after reading this, in some way at least. --Rubbish computer 01:30, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
 * "started"? I have a longstanding view that we need to get serious about this and that a fair number of toxic personalities need to be shown the door immediately.  If anyone wants my personal list, I can give it.  The thing to understand is that I do not have, and do not want, the direct Henry the Eighth power to declare "off with their heads".  But I will fight all the way to the top (and can guarantee success at that level, if there is community backing) at the Foundation to enforce strong community demand for positive change.  If I were confident that I had the backing of the community and the Foundation, I'd personally get rid of a fair number of misogynists.  In the meantime, I strongly support efforts to build consensus.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 02:38, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Why so coy? Publish your list and let's see where you rank in the top-ten "toxic personalities". If you're afraid to do so publicly for whatever reason then please feel free to email it to me. Eric   Corbett  17:55, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Discussion on WP:HARASS hasn't been closed yet... but I'm thinking the only way things will change is through WMF intervention. Too much entrenchment, entitlement, and outright disbelief that anything is wrong.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) Please &#123;&#123;re&#125;&#125; 02:42, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I tend to agree but I remain hopeful.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 03:08, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
 * What good is banning people who just come back as sockpuppets? One thing you could do that would really help female editors and women everywhere, Jimbo, is to renounce the misogyny and supply side trickle down economics that you brought in with your Objectivist fanboys. Rand's popularity was enabled by Art Okun's terrible mistake which is now completely discredited. How about a video of you telling the camera, "Ayn Rand was right about the importance of reason, purpose, and self-esteem. Ayn Rand was wrong about relying on amphetamines, she was wrong about supply side trickle down economics, and she was wrong about the virtue of masculine assumption of female consent." Courage, Jimbo! EllenCT (talk) 14:43, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Please record that on Neil Tyson's set, or something that looks similar, with http://listen.hatnote.com/ in the background and these display panels to be added to your chair's armrest in post-production. EllenCT (talk) 00:48, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
 * "'I do not have, and do not want, the direct Henry the Eighth power to declare 'off with their heads''"-- I don't know the particulars in what kind of 'power' you do or do not have, and I agree that one person with that type of power can be a bad/dangerous thing. But it's the only position on this site I would ever want. What needs to be done should be done via WMF. Shrugging your collective shoulders(boys will be boys¯\_(ツ)_/¯) and allowing the same things to repeat over and over is in essence saying "Wikipedia hates women". Dave Dial (talk) 03:51, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Agree. If the discussion at HARASS fails, the only recourse would be WMF. If they do not act, it's clear how they feel about the issue then. Their lack of action thus far shows indifference at least, though worse motives could be inferred.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) Please &#123;&#123;re&#125;&#125; 04:01, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
 * If you look at the Grants:Evaluation/Community Health learning campaign/Questions, you'll find several people using the word "polite" as their idea of a healthy community. So it's interesting to see how the WMF Grants and Wikimedia Blog sections are developing into happy PR about getting along, but meanwhile, parts of the "community" of English Wikipedia editors take the less respectful positions towards women you see below. It looks increasingly possible that "consensus" for being polite and treating women better here will need to involve the general public that actually uses Wikipedia, and not just the people who spend their free time arguing on the site. At some point, it's just not right to blame the "community" for being the ones that are failing to reach consensus, and for failing to invent a fully functional anti-harassment policy with enforcement mechanisms by arguing back and forth on talk pages. The WMF sets out the terms of use, and either these terms of use are enforced or they aren't. --Djembayz (talk) 01:03, 18 August 2015 (UTC)


 * I found the Cracked piece to be a particularly lame rehash with one ridiculous sensationalistic headline that was swapped out for another. If you want food for thought, check out the mini-essay on the user page of our own, which includes the following:


 * Part of entrenched bias of course is the underrepresentation of women and "women's topics" in the encyclopedia. Here, our insistence on reliable sources exacerbates the problem already presented by historical (and continuing) gender bias - there are online projects to document the lives and achievements of unsung women that in some cases don't pass our litmus test, and the sources for things like Barbie dolls, traditional knitting and quilting patterns, and so on are often unimpressive even when in print. I wrote up a toy manufacturer (founded by a woman and using local women for labor) that I had seen news articles on in the late 1970s, but what had been put online was patchy.


 * However, on the woman issue, the WMF's approach does more harm than good. their research on the percentage of female editors is fatally flawed, and they have used those bogus numbers to negate the existence of those of us who are female editors, to condescend, and to divide the community. Seeing pop-up ads inviting people to apply for grants to fix the problem that I don't exist alienates me. Being told in a blog post by the past head of the WMF that half a dozen of her friends know better than me about what turns off women from editing Wikipedia—about the fact the lady assumes I don't exist—alienates me. (Most of these turn-offs don't matter to me at all, by the way.) The constant advertising of editathons on women's issues, for women, is divisive. The demonizing of editors who dare to question the statistics while being male-identified is divisive and counterproductive ... as well as condescending. I left the Gender Gap Task Force alone because hey, each to her own, but it does not speak for me and the WMF's promotion of this political effort and lionization of those women who spend their time yacking there instead of actually writing the encyclopedia chaps my butt.

On point. Carrite (talk) 05:46, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
 * The issue here is a I've seen a number of established editors do this sort of behaviour, and unfortunately, no admin wants to deal with the typical "but they are a good editor" backlash while blocking them, and if the WMF takes this on, this will make them even more unpopular in some people's eyes. Personally, I think we need a few more admins willing to make and defend these sort of blocks, or even take these cases to ARBCOM more regularly, otherwise WMF involvement would be the only realistic solution (Which I would happy support in any way I could) Mdann52 (talk) 06:33, 16 August 2015 (UTC)


 * In her recent RfA, User:Liz saw significant opposition because she had expressed the opinion that "the role of administrators is undermined if there is the impression that there are different standards for behavior based on an editor's contributions and the view that some editors are unblockable". One editor commented that many voters opposed her nomination "because Liz dared make the statement that content creators should not be given carte blanche exemptions from the rules. Everyone knows this". After reading the comments posted in that RfA, I agree. Not only is there a significant faction on Wikipedia that thinks that heavy content creators should be exempt from most rules, but they oppose any admin candidate who doesn't agree, and tend to only support admin candidates who have created multiple GAs or FAs. --Guy Macon (talk) 07:23, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
 * That's a complete misrepresenation of the concerns expressed. The issue was centered around the goals of the project.  Civility exists to serve content creation and building the encyclopedia. The concern was that it appeared Liz expressed open hostility to the sole reason we are here.  All of the subplots regarding editor retention, gendergap, etc, are to improve content creation and quality.  They are not ends unto themselves and administrators that don't understand that are harmful.  If an admins goal is to push a social egenda on wikipedia, they need very close scrutiny and that it is why her nomination was controversial and divisive. The rules exist to serve content creation and quality, not the other way around.  It's why "Ignore all rule" and "not a bureaucracy" are fundamental aspects and why good administrators clear out obstacles to content creators rather than fuel drama that inhibits it.   --DHeyward (talk) 07:01, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I am baffled how that mild statement can be interpreted as one of "open hostility".  Gamaliel  ( talk ) 00:33, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Reading the opposes and the concerns, it should be less baffling to realize that mild statement wasn't a major reason for opposes and is why the strawman argument above is a misrepresentation of the opposes. There were a number of editors that relayed personal experiences that were viewed, in toto, as a pattern of behavior rather than simply reaction to a mild statement. , for example, posed a question, an oppose rationale with example and gave a personal response for her reasoning.  It was not a unique experience that was expressed nor was it related to a single comment or incident.  My reading of the opposes was a concern about wading into disputes with only the letter of the law, but limited background on the nature of the dispute, the history, the parties, etc, and those factors are relevant when dealing with trolls, socks, fringe theories and other issues.   --DHeyward (talk) 12:43, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Can you identify any statement of hers that expresses "open hostility"?  Gamaliel  ( talk ) 13:51, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
 * That would have been a good question to pose at her RfA but it doesn't change the view that was expressed by the opposers who held that opinion. You can read the various accounts that were cited as examples of hostility.  There's multiple discussions on the talk page as well.  --DHeyward (talk) 15:17, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I have read those accounts and discussions and I don't feel that there is anything that supports the characterization of "open hostility", though I may have missed something. Could you identify a statement or account which you think supports your characterization of "open hostility"?   Gamaliel  ( talk ) 15:29, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Did you have difficulty understanding the opposers? It's one thing to disagree with the argument but quite a difference in not understanding the argument.  'Hostile' as a term is mentioned a number of times on the various pages.  The crats seemed to have understood it when they they evaluated the comments and this appears very near the top of their discussion: Liz appears to have given the impression to those who focus on writing content that she regards them with contempt.  --DHeyward (talk) 16:31, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I am having difficulty understanding why, if this attitude of hers is supposedly so obvious to everyone, you can't produce a single statement of hers to support this.  Gamaliel  ( talk ) 16:34, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
 * As I said, you should have asked the opposers during the RfA. It's clear that was their opinion and reason for opposing, though.  Clear enough that the crats mentioned the appearance of contempt for content creators in the opening bit of discussion.  Did you have difficulty understanding that assessment?  I didn't participate in the crat discussion so they may be of more help as to why they thought the opposers believe she had contempt for content creators but it's a fair summary of the overall oppose view.  There were 70 or so opposers and that was the 'crats first summary.  It's obviously a superficial and a strawman argument to blame the opposers view in a single statement. --18:32, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I am asking one of the opposers now, opposer #36 to be specific, and the one who made the specific claim here of "open hostility". Since you are unwilling to substantiate your claim of "open hostility", you should strike your remarks.   Gamaliel  ( talk ) 18:39, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Oh please. Get over yourself.  The concern (of the opposers) was that it appeared Liz expressed open hostility to the sole reason we are here. It is an analysis of the oppose votes and the same conclusion the crats had.  For whatever reason, that was the concern.  There were 70 opposers with variations on that basic observation.  "Contempt for content creators" works equally well and those were the exact words in the 'crat discussion.  It had nothing to do with a single or simple statement.  How about you strike the patronizing nonsense that 70 people opposed her RfA over a "mild statement."  --DHeyward (talk) 19:33, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Do you find you normally win a lot arguments without providing a single piece of evidence?  Gamaliel  ( talk ) 20:01, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
 * You seem to think I need to convince you to change your opinion before you recognize there is actually another side that wasn't "Support."  That's not rational.  Fortunately, 'crats weren't burdened by irrationality.  As I said, here's an early assessment of a 'crats thought of oppose votes as a whole:  Liz appears to given the impression to those who focus on writing content that she regards them with contempt. is one diff given as a summary by a 'crat.  That's a fair assessment of the oppose votes and it's not my view and it's not my diff.  It's an assessment by a 'crat that believes she should get the tools, but still understood what the oppose votes were highlighting.  You don't have to agree that it's a correct view, but it is the view expressed. It wasn't opposition to a "mild statement" that you seem to think it is.  The crat's obviously didn't think it was enough to prevent her from getting the tools, but they didn't dismiss it.  In fact, it was discussed as being a concern regardless of the outcome and it was sugggested that she considers carefully how she gave that impression and (avoid) doing so in future regardless of the outcome of this RfA..  Do you often have trouble separating arguments presented from arguments that convinced you?  Do you often need to be convinced an argument is only valid if you hold that opinion? I can list why a number of supporters believe she will be a good admin as well even if I don't personally think they outweigh the concerns.  It doesn't invalidate their assessment simply because I don't hold it.  Not from your eloquent support testimonial, of course, but from supporters that put thought into it and also addressed some of the oppose concerns.  The only argument I presented here is that dismissing 70 opposes due to a "mild statement" is an incorrect assessment.  If you cannot be convinced of that, then, no, I do not win arguments when the opposition is irrational.  --DHeyward (talk) 23:27, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
 * And if you really want my personal opinion, which is largely irrelevant, as there are 70 others that registered opposes, my concern is summed up barely a week after getting the tools, Liz templated admin Masem over edit warring on a gamergate spillover topic (how "My little pony" is gamergate is beyond me, but the regulars showed up to do battle including IP's). Masem had the good grace to ignore it.  She realized her mistake as well.  It's those types of things that create unpleasant experiences for long time contributors and a reason why we don't template the regulars.  Had it been someone else with less patience than Masem, it would have been a bloody talk page mess just as it was with Sitush's example (check the history of Masem's talk page and you will see edit warring there as well over comments on the template).  --DHeyward (talk) 23:56, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I was already roasted over a spit at my RfA and I don't want to relive the experience, DHeyward. The RfA ended two weeks ago. Could you please stop with the direct and indirect personal attacks on Jimbo Wales talk page? You once accused me of stalking your contributions as we both ended up editing the same talk page. But now, you seem to be scrutinizing my edits...can I expect this to continue? Because, personally, I'd like to get back to editing the encyclopedia rather than talking about my RfA or defending myself, especially on another editor's talk page. Let's both move on, shall we? Liz  Read! Talk! 00:11, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
 * You will have to ask Gamaliel. He seems unsatisfied with the roasting and keeps asking for "proof".  I'd just as soon let it drop.  Welcome to the conversation though.  And yes, if you continue to template regular content contributors as an admin, you will be scrutinized.  Not by me, though.  If you noticed, I didn't comment or revert you on any pages even when you felt it necessary to revert me.  I try to avoid interacting with you. If you do template regulars on talk pages on my watch list, you can expect that I'll see it and if it's not on pages I watch, I won't see it.  Not sure why you would think templating Masem would be an invisible act, though, considering your involvement with Gamergate.  --DHeyward (talk) 01:28, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Most of the oppose votes were Gamergate. Gamergate follows women around the internet to harass them and they followed Liz here. Liz is a good Wikipedian who’s done nothing to deserve criticism except being born female and becoming a Gamergate target. Giving her oppose votes any credibility means supporting a harassment campaign. 208.167.254.227 (talk) 19:45, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

It's always the people most outspoken on the gender gap and misogyny on wikipedia though who actually contribute the least content on here. Those of us who really care about systematic bias against women in articles actually get on with doing something about it instead of moaning about it. And those of us who are the apparent worse offenders of bias against women get on with promoting women to FA, which is more than I can say for Mr Wales.♦ Dr. Blofeld  10:00, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
 * "Always" is a universal quantifier. Why did you decide to use it? I've created plenty of content in some of the most frequently read articles on the site, and I have a very deep skepticism of people who use universal quantifiers as ambigious hyperbole while bragging about articles they took to FA which get a dozen hits a day. EllenCT (talk) 16:44, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Typical "no real scotsman" argument paired with the Randian "content creators" stuff.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) Please &#123;&#123;re&#125;&#125; 16:57, 16 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Article is WP:LAME. Discussion about it is WP:LAME. Who the heck reads "cracked"? NickCT (talk) 10:06, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
 * 150 people per day read the Cracked.com article. That's more than 10% of the people who read the CNN article. EllenCT (talk) 14:29, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Agree with Dr. Blofeld. Don't talk about it, or write an article which seems very self-congratulatory, almost embarrassingly so, but if there aren't enough women FAs, do something about it, like we are.  As for Jimbo above, and his little list, words fail.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:27, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I feel compelled to agree with Blofeld and Yngvadottir too - as an out woman (albeit as a wikignome who no longer has time to do much of that, even) I hope I can say that. There's a lot of stuff which just feels patronising and if people could find a way through the genuine 'women's participation' issues that wasn't so condescending it would help. LouiseS1979 (pigeonhole) 11:30, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
 * What amazes me is that Jimbo and foundation seem to think that the odd utterance of the "c word" or "twat" (directed at a male at that) or whatever is more responsible for women leaving wikipedia than the general hostile attitude towards content producers displayed by new page patrollers for instance. Every day we lose dozens of notable articles, and those produced by female editors too because these people don't bother to check externally to see if they can be improved. They plaster tags over articles and they get deleted, and people despair and think "wikipedia is a waste of time" so leave. The way adminship functions at times on here is also hostile towards potential content contributors and people are put off by it, They don't want to be drilled warnings when they're trying the best to learn the ropes on here. So I find it astounding that the gender gap problems with the site are blamed purely on editors perceived as misogynistic and that Jimbo seems to think that if he banned them all suddenly everything would be smelling of roses. The problems are far more deep rooted in the system on here, and it's something that the foundation seem oblivious to and unwilling to bring about improvements. While most of us would prefer that editors avoid calling each other cunts or twats, again it's pointless saying "If I had the power I would" when it's clear that you don't and no matter how much you moan about it it's not going to change the situation.♦ Dr. Blofeld  12:06, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
 * BTW If you really did a survey of all of the women to date who have tried to edit wikipedia and gave up, or those who might potentially edit wikipedia I'm pretty sure "an editor called xxx the c word" would be a reason far down the list. The real reasons why most women leave wikipedia and give up are no different to why most men leave. And those are the deep rooted site problems and natural hostility and lack of good faith on here. I'm pretty sure if anybody here started an account with a female name or a male name it would make little difference to how their work might be treated on the new pages. And for the record, most of the women I know who have left wikipedia is not because somebody swore at somebody but because of that hostility, a POV pusher on an article, ANI silliness or harassment, and by harassment I mean really psychological harassment, not sweary personal attacks and the odd gender joke, stuff which really get to people and go unpunished. The last two or three women I know who left wikipedia or took leave on disgust was because of the misconduct of an admin abusing his position actually. Those are the real reasons why most people leave, men or women.♦ Dr. Blofeld  12:32, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, as long as the argument turns to "who really cares" about systemic bias, than at least the discussion goes somewhere - in the end, although not a winnable argument, it may lead to good results. Covering topics or having "editors avoid calling each other cunts or twats" is a false dichotomy, is it not? Surely, both are possible, and "what most of us would prefer".   Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:25, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
 * The main issue isn't getting more women bios as FA. It's how editors are treated and the atmosphere of harassment and sexism on Wikipedia. Editors are what make Wikipedia, not FAs. Fix that, more women will edit and other manifestations of the gender gap such as FAs will close with it. Of course we have the typical offenders here opining how saying "cunt" shouldn't be a big deal though.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) Please &#123;&#123;re&#125;&#125; 17:01, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm going to be bold here but to my knowledge the female editors I know on here don't experience any serious harassment or sexism on here because they're female. If they do they've never complained to me about it. You'll regularly hear complaints about cowboy admins, infobox pushers, POV pushers and civility warriors but I never hear "He victimises me because I'm female". The times I've seen female editors complaining of harassment, it's been from other females, not males. I find female editors are usually more agreeable to work with in article collaboration anyway, and I'm not the only one who thinks that. It really does seem to be something claimed by the gender gap lot, the types like yourself who feel vulnerable in society anyway and perceive everything negative on wikipedia to because of their gender or sexuality. We do need more featured articles on women and in general, but if we are to attract women to the project the main issue is the general hostility towards everybody on here who creates new content or edits core articles, not sexist remarks against women. Sorry, but I've really not encountered that sort of thing myself, all I've heard about it is associated with the gender gap project. ♦ Dr. Blofeld  18:32, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Self-selection into your editing circle would probably be the biggest reason for that... also confirmation bias. But you also are making a fundamental attribution bias in thinking it's due to personal factors that people at the GGTF are upset. FWIW, anti-harassment policies that prohibit things like calling editors "cunts" has been shown to increase productivity and morale.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) Please &#123;&#123;re&#125;&#125; 18:43, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
 * My perception of the situation is that there's more a hatred of male editors at the gender gap project based on feminist ideologies than vice versa. I think you have a tendency to view negative situations as a male vs female thing rather than a general website problem in agreement anyway. Beyond Eric occasionally calling somebody a cunt, where is the evidence of this mass harassment against editors purely because they're women?♦ Dr. Blofeld  18:57, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
 * This "cunt" thing really does need to be put into perspective. I think in my eight years here I've only ever called two editors cunts, and both of them, one of whom was Jimbo Wales, I have good reason to believe are male. The word may make hearts palpitate in American feminist circles, but it doesn't have the same bite elsewhere in the English-speaking world, especially when applied to males, as it almost always is. In fact I'd not be in the slightest surprised to see it reclaimed in the not-too distant future. Eric   Corbett  19:20, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, another misconception, I think Jimbo is convinced you go about the site every day doing nothing but specifically targeting female editors and calling them that, and that any female editors who leave wikipedia somehow got gist of it and broke down in tears.♦ Dr. Blofeld  06:22, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
 * "In fact I'd not be in the slightest surprised to see it reclaimed in the not-too distant future." Perhaps a bit off topic of me, but I'd like to point out that this is already happening with university zines like Cuntry Living. Brustopher (talk) 20:44, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
 * My local listings paper was for some years called the Shoreditch Twat, so named because of the (generally well-deserved) nickname given to the locals by the rest of London. The world did not come to an end. &#8209; iridescent 20:56, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Then, there is this article here, WP:THREATENING2MEN: Misogynist Infopolitics and the Hegemony of the Asshole Consensus on English Wikipedia by Bryce Peake from Issue #7 of Ada:A Journal of New Media and Technology. Liz Read! Talk! 16:59, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Wadewitz found that her gender caused people to demand more reliable sources, but it's a cloud with a silver lining: no pain, no gain, when it comes to figuring out how to find peer reviewed literature reviews on economic topics, for example. I don't think there are more than a handful of editors who really have proven that they know how to find those. Much misogyny online is simply a reflection of trends in popular culture, many of whom in Wikipedia's community have shown they can rise above, along with many who have demonstrated that they are unable or unwilling to rise above. EllenCT (talk) 22:05, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Wadewitz found no such thing. Eric   Corbett  00:27, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I watched a lengthy panel with Adrienne Wadewitz, with the unfortunate (and somewhat repudiated) name "Storming Wikipedia".
 * She mentions the move from pseudonymous to orthonomynous resulted in comments "oh you're a woman" "you can't really be a woman" "you don't write like a woman" and not being taken as seriously, being judged to be hysterical and emotional, and that Wikipedia suddenly seemed to be a masculine place, where as it hadn't seemed like that before.
 * I did some searching for any references to "hysteria" on any talk page with Adrienne's sig, and none of them were a reply to her. This makes me wonder to what extent this was subjective, due to revelation of her gender making her feel vulnerable, rather than an objective change in the nature of responses.  It would be a good RQ to find the proportion of such comments before and after.
 * If, however, this is valid then simply not identifying one's gender (or falsely identifying as male) removes the "masculinisation" of the environment, which would be a simple fix - do not allow gendered user names.
 * All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 00:57, 17 August 2015 (UTC).
 * If it's so simple then post the RFC to rename all those people, most of whom haven't logged in recently, to WP:VP/P. There are simpler ways to impose the benefits of anonymity. EllenCT (talk) 01:03, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
 * EllenCT@undefined, if it can be demonstrated that a significant percentage of females feel happier when they edit with a gender neutral name, I would certainly be willing to propose that the "Create account" dialogue contains advice to that effect.
 * Conversely if it can be demonstrated that the remarks Adrienne mentioned are a widespread (I have searched for all of them, finding, I think, one match by a blocked IP, on their talk page) then I would be happy to put in place measures to stop them.
 * Acting on the basis of hunch and feeling is recipe for disaster.
 * All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 18:16, 17 August 2015 (UTC).


 * Just so this doesn't get buried, I note here that I have asked Jimbo above for a copy of his personal list. Eric   Corbett  18:26, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Coming out of retirement and a life of joyous relaxation to endorse Eric's comment. You say: "a fair number of toxic personalities need to be shown the door immediately. If anyone wants my personal list, I can give it." I do want it; so please can I have it.  Giano    (talk) 18:44, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Umm User:Jimbo Wales/Jimbo's List of Cunts - No. Do not want.  --DHeyward (talk) 16:31, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
 * You may not want it but I do. Jimbo publicly offered above to make it available to anyone who asked for it, so I'm asking. Eric   Corbett  18:26, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't mean to be off topic but under point 2 of the 4 the article states "... the number of Wikipedia editors shrank by over a third" - with a source- "with most of those that left being women". I haven't read through the source it cites but I have never heard of the proportion of female editors on Wikipedia actually shrinking over time. I am not exactly an expert on this, so forgive me if I'm wrong. Is this statement an observation by Morwen? --Rubbish computer 20:29, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

This female/male editors issue should be treated as irrelevant, by English Wikipedia. We're all Wikipedians, leave it at that. GoodDay (talk) 20:30, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I'd hardly consider it irrelevant unless we're all just here to write about knowledge on the basis of one POV. Actually, if anything, Wikipedia has made me more aware of just how necessary things like black and women's history month is. MurderByDeadcopy<i style="color:black;">"bang!"</i> 23:59, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Yes of course, but I am questioning the accuracy of the statement in the Cracked article. --Rubbish computer 20:55, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Apologies if you weren't replying to me. Rubbish computer 21:07, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Well, if that article bothered you, just imagine what kind of press Wikipedia would be receiving if ArbComm had adopted its tone-deaf proposed language instructing women not to fight back against sexual harassment. Really now. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 04:01, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I read the Cracked article, and I believe some of its criticisms are valid, but some are the product of sour grapes over how the Manning arbitration case concluded. I suggest if the article's author really wants to see some sexism in play in Wikipedia, that the author check out the alternative medicine and other pseudoscience articles and observe the behavior of many of the "pro-science" editors. Cla68 (talk) 01:02, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Because all the FRINGE pushers are women or because no women back actual science? I hardly think that is valid claim at all. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  21:38, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Jimbo, please do make something like that video described above, or take a principled stand on the issues somehow. You're a talented skit communicator. How do you think the factors described in and  have influenced Wikipedian culture? Are you still holding on to supply side trickle down; if so, on what grounds? EllenCT (talk) 15:31, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Editors accepting Jimbo's offer to provide his list of "toxic" editors that should be "shown the door"

 * Sorry Jimmy, you obviously missed this in all the noise above - easily done. So I'll say it again: You say: "a fair number of toxic personalities need to be shown the door immediately. If anyone wants my personal list, I can give it." I do want it; so please can I have it.  Giano    (talk) 19:29, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Me, too. - Sitush (talk) 19:38, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Me thrice.  Cassianto <sup style="font-family:Papyrus;">Talk   07:43, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I also would like to take Jimbo up on his generous offer. (Now there are four of us we can have a game of dominoes whilst we wait.) <span style="font-family:monospace, monospace;">pablo 07:53, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Somebody just publicly asked Jimbo to provide this list. I don't know how long that question will stay up, because Quora in the past has sometimes deleted uncomfortable questions posed to Jimbo. Cla68 (talk) 00:59, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Jimbo committed to providing his list to anyone who asked. I've asked and I've received nothing. I suspect he knows that he's made yet another of his faux pas and won't be back until this thread is archived and, he hopes, forgotten. Eric   Corbett  19:57, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
 * If I had a more cynical mind, I'd say he's just realised that considerably more than 13% of his "fair number of toxic personalities" are female, including the name at the top of the list, and someone has pointed out to him just how that's going to look in the current climate. &#8209; iridescent 20:08, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Iridescent, you're a flatterer, I don't really think I'm at the top of the list anymore. But I'd be interested to see it too. Bishonen &#124; talk 08:06, 19 August 2015 (UTC).
 * There is that. It seems to be difficult for some people to keep two ideas in their heads simultaneously. Eric   Corbett  22:23, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I too am curious to see this list of contributors that Jimbo thinks should be kicked off the project. Please add me to the mailing list. Yunshui <sup style="font-size:90%">雲 <sub style="font-size:90%">水 08:50, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
 * And me. Doug Weller (talk) 09:34, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I would like to see it as well please. Is it going to appear here or be sent via mailing list? DeCausa (talk) 09:59, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I have email enabled if you'd rather send it to me that way. BethNaught (talk) 10:35, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Also would like to be on that cc list if you don't mind. Thanks.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:03, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Count me in. Writegeist (talk) 20:26, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
 * +1, although I dare say I could recreate the list without too much effort. (Jimbo, would "the other editors to comment in this section, one former arb and two now-banned users" cover it?) &#8209; iridescent 20:44, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm trying to figure out whether the people still posting here are incredibly stupid or whether they just don't know how to read. --JBL (talk) 21:09, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Which best describes you? Writegeist (talk) 21:23, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Ah, "I know you are but what am I?", truly the insult of a brilliant intellect. --JBL (talk) 00:39, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

I'd like to see Jimbos Editor Hitlist as well. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 23:58, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
 * One poster on Wikipediocracy opined that the list is writing itself with the requests made to see the list here. Another indicated that I'd be on such a 10 person list, which came as a surprise... Sounds like I had better make a request for the list out of solidarity if nothing else... Carrite (talk) 03:10, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Editors not wanting Jimbo's list of "toxic" editors that should be "shown the door"
It's a trap! Don't publish it, or e-mail it to anyone, Jimbo. If it is e-mailed to anyone it would likely be published on this very page. There may well be toxic personalities on en.wp, but it is not within WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA to state your opinion on this matter, unless considerable evidence is given. And even if evidence is provided, it may cause more problems than it solves. <b style="font-family:'Segoe Script',cursive;"> --Jules (Mrjulesd)</b> 10:46, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I think we all realise that he knows that. BethNaught (talk) 10:47, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, if asking for it is a trap, and he would be "a fool" to answer it, than isn't asking for it baiting? He has opened himself to be baited but that does not mean anyone should do so. Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:31, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't know about "opened himself up to be baited" but he did offer to provide the list, and a number of people have taken him at his word. <span style="font-family:monospace, monospace;">pablo 12:36, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
 * That context was addressed in the comment I linked to: "Jimbo would be a fool to publicly post a list of people he believes should be removed from Wikipedia or even to privately write it down. I'm sure if you asked me I could come up with a list of people Wikipedia would be better without and I'm one of the most tolerant people on there. ¶ Looking at the context of the statement though, Jimbo was replying to an individual who was implying he was happy with the status quo and perhaps he should start to instigate reform. He responded (probably too quickly) to say that he wasn't happy with the status quo and why he wasn't happy with it." Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:51, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Indeed. It was a foolish remark said in an emotional moment.  A number of people should take off their Spider Man suits and back away from the Reichstag.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 13:07, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Looking forward to the Night of the long (Britney) Spears. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:14, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
 * It is nothing to do with Spiderman impersonations. A number of people should stop hinting at throwing their weight around and then backing down, Jimbo. All this malarkey resembles nothing more than a disingenuous attempt at death by a thousand cuts, ably supported by acolytes who in many cases are or were WMF employees and thus at the very centre of the cult. You've had at least a couple of shots fired across your bows in recent months for ill-advised, albeit vaguely-worded, attempts at rabble-rousing here. Calling it a "foolish remark" doesn't come close, sorry. I'll say it again: this talk page, which attracts vast amounts of attention in large part because nobodies mistakenly think you are a somebody, should be shut down. If you must deal with issues relating to the WP project as a whole then it should be done at Meta. Or you could help, say, get Walter Whitehead to FA status in something close to record time: that is something beneficial to the core purpose of this project. - Sitush (talk) 15:58, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
 * "because nobodies mistakenly think you are a somebody" I think Jimbo is making his point, there are definite civility issues to be addressed. <b style="font-family:'Segoe Script',cursive;"> --Jules (Mrjulesd)</b> 16:14, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Starting with Jimbo himself of course. Eric   Corbett  16:17, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I somewhat naively assume that when Jimbo says list he actually means that he is able to name several off the top of his head that he personally doesn't like and isn't actually keeping a "list". If he were keeping an offline list that would trouble me a bit. Not that he is keeping it, but that he hasn't done anything with it. He hasn't submitted it to the Arbcom or the WMF for review, submitted it to the community, taken action himself (I see he has admin powers), started some discussion about specific issues that he must see as patterns, nothing. Just retort here. So I feel like if these problems were actually problems, then he would feel stronger about them and address them in some way other than just get everyone spun up. Certainly some actions would cause controversy, mostly because he has never bothered to use his admin access (as far as I can tell). So naturally if he just started acting out of the blue, then it would ruffle feathers. It seems like there is some benign efforts he could do though to help out if he doesn't feel like doing the heavy lifting, so that those who do, would be freed up from other tasks. RingofSauron (talk) 17:08, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
 * , I don't see any ambiguity in "If anyone wants my personal list, I can give it." That pretty much does what it says on the tin.  Cassianto <sup style="font-family:Papyrus;">Talk   18:14, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Yeah that's what I was afraid of. RingofSauron (talk) 18:17, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
 * There are certainly on here who refuse to believe the existence of this "toxic list", so I would request that Jimbo divulges this list (if any) to end any more speculation. If not, I would be most interested in why he said it?     Cassianto <sup style="font-family:Papyrus;">Talk   18:22, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I think that there might be a real issue here, regarding the nature of this alleged list and/or the names on it if it is real, as well as, at least conceivably, who might have been told of those names. Personally, I tend to think that Late Show Top 10 Lists have been so common since the David Letterman regular use of the idea that it is not unreasonable to see the initial comment as being what I think it probably was, a comment indicating that there are a number of "toxic" editors who Jimbo may have recognized over the years, using language more for effect than for strict accuracy. While it might not be an official, formal "list", the phrasing certainly leads to thinking that it is or was such a real list, at least in Jimbo's head. There does seem to be some reason to think that Jimbo has at least thought of at least a few regular editors as "toxic." If the list has never been discussed or displayed to anyone, fine, I could take the statement as simply a bit of an exaggeration. But if there is any reason to believe that at some point the names on the "list" were communicated to others, I could see how it might be reasonable for anyone who is still active and thinks that they might be, metaphorically, in Jimbo's "dog house," to want to know that. Some clarification of whether this alleged "list" has ever been discussed or circulated might be welcome, as well as any details as to who is included in the alleged list and any individuals the list may have been distributed to in some form or other. John Carter (talk) 18:38, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
 * If we're going to compile lists, then I can publish a list of editors whom I would consider to be complete and utter wankers. The difference is, I would be able to justify each and every one of them, unlike, I suspect, Jimbo.  Cassianto <sup style="font-family:Papyrus;">Talk   18:45, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Here is the problem as I see it. Who and how do we define "toxic"? Is it how they use some tool, their demeanor, do they or do they not have any Featured content, do they have a group of friends that protect them? There are so many ways that someone could be qualified as "toxic" based on just the limited list of criteria I gave (let alone the dozens of others) that its too subjective. I have no doubt that all of us could generate a list of a few names of people that we have crossed paths with that we would rather not have to deal with. In the end, we have to decide what's best for the project. Is the project better off dealing with some editors we don't personally like that do a lot of X or do a really good job at Y or do we systematically remove them all from the site, so that all we have left are people who edit once in a while under the radar, don't do too much and don't get involved in anything that could ruffle feathers? Or do we realize that not everyone is going to share our same mindset, will have different views and values, will believe in different things and come from different backgrounds and will require additional discussion and collaboration to work through disagreements? Given that this is a world wide project with a lot of variety of social statuses and backgrounds I assume the latter would be expected and that we would go to great lengths to avoid the former in order to improve the quality of our content for our readers. I would also say that, IMO, whomever presents such a list had better be able to provide some credible reason why that individual is on the list and be ready to discuss it. Otherwise, its probably a personal attack or would at least be argued as such. RingofSauron (talk) 18:49, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Jimbo's list of "toxic editors", like my list of wankers, is a subjective one. I suspect that 90% of the names on the "toxic list" will be made up of content contributors who spend their time and money improving the project. I have said all along; if these "toxic personalities" - for that, read content contributors - were removed from the site, there would be no project. Owing to recent RfA's, such as Liz and NeilN, it's been proved that you don't need the ability to write at all, just the ability to loiter at drama boards and do the sweeping up after.   Cassianto <sup style="font-family:Papyrus;">Talk   19:08, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

I would say it is expected and appropriate behaviour to draw attention to anyone harming the project if you have sufficient evidence as the basis of those claims. I would not take such an action without the proper due diligence. I fully disagree with the idea that such things are not to be pointed out when seen, simply that they need proper substantiation. <b style="color:Blue">Chillum</b> 19:13, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Ah Chillum, I was just thinking of you!  Cassianto <sup style="font-family:Papyrus;">Talk   19:48, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Considering that this is Jimbo's talk page he says very little I've noticed. I don't know why people bother, it's clear that he's not impressed with a sizable percentage of editors commenting here! I think the time has got to come where people start to see him less as a God-King and more as a PR man. The fact is he has little control over the day to day running of the encyclopedia and it's only his opinion whatever he has to say at the end of the day. So he has a list of toxic personalities. Well so do I, I'm sure most of us have a list of them, only mine is more similar to Cassianto's...♦ Dr. Blofeld  20:19, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Don't want it. But if he does follow through, it should be put here: User:Jimbo Wales/Jimbo's List of Cunts in the full spirit of how discussions like this both start and end: with offense that is brash, shocking and controversial. (In the spirit of the latest hullabaloo at Arbcom, maybe User:Jimbo Wales/Jimbo's Final Solution to Cunts and Little Boys - it could literally explode the ArbCom and ANI board with stack overflows of "Edit Conflict"). (Oh and the title is why the list shouldn't be created because no matter what, being included will be offensive regardless of what it is called - I doubt inclusion would inspire self-reflection or anything more than drama.). --DHeyward (talk) 20:51, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Jimbo, if you don't immediately hand over your list of people who should stand behind you in Wesley Crusher uniforms on Neil Tyson's sound stage while you renounce Ayn Rand's misogyny and supply side trickle down, I am going to have words with my local chapter of the PC users group. EllenCT (talk) 21:27, 19 August 2015 (UTC)


 * RingofSauron makes a fairly good attempt at hitting the nail on the head - So I feel like if these problems were actually problems, then he would feel stronger about them and address them in some way other than just get everyone spun up. They miss the point that by sheer repetition it would seem that Jimmy does in fact feel strongly about the "problems" but they're right about the "spun up". Jimmy, put up or shut up: you are doing more harm than good. - Sitush (talk) 23:47, 19 August 2015 (UTC)


 * But there is more to it. Jimbo claimed that he could go to the WMF with his list, and with sufficient community support he would be able to have everyone on his list banned. Discounting the fact that unless he made his list public, gathering any community support would be highly unlikely, I think he has a lot yet to explain; being "emotional" just doesn't cut it. Try vindictive. Or toxic. Eric   Corbett  23:58, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
 * "Try vindictive. Or toxic." Calling Jimbo that seems to contravene WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL. You also seem to be backing up his premise. <b style="font-family:'Segoe Script',cursive;"> --Jules (Mrjulesd)</b> 00:26, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Leave the picket line for just a moment to consider the uncivil claim of such a list existing in the first place . Or are we to assume that you think Jimbo is exempt from such incivility?  Cassianto <sup style="font-family:Papyrus;">Talk   01:00, 20 August 2015 (UTC)


 * I really would like to to see the most toxic personality on Wikipedia explain himself without any further lying or obfuscation. Will it ever happen? No. Eric   Corbett  00:23, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Editors not wanting Jimbo's copy of Toxic
No thanks. Got any Fleetwood Mac? --Dweller (talk) 12:15, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Support. Obviously.<b style="font-family:'Segoe Script',cursive;"> --Jules (Mrjulesd)</b> 12:18, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose. I'd love it. A real happening groovy sound, pop-pickers. Great to see Jimbo "in the zone". Martinevans123 (talk) 13:07, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I already have her greatest hits album so I am good.-- The Britney Spears Advocate tlk.  cntrb. 21:27, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Jimbo, If you upload the Rap version on Spotify it could even reduce WMF dependence on the annual fundraiser.  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  22:05, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Editors wanting an end to the subsection !voting of a supposed list taken waaaay too seriously

 * Support.--Mark Miller (talk) 00:13, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Really? You're presumably not among those who might be insinuated as being among the listed. Jimbo has not said that it was a joke, and his past references certainly seem to demonstrate that he does take it seriously. Just being emotional is a pretty poor cop-out, given that he actually trades - financially or otherwise - on his emotions about this project. - Sitush (talk) 00:18, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I AM among those that have been heavily criticized for my actions by Jimbo. I never assumed it was a joke nor stated that. We have all "traded' on our emotions by reacting to Jimbo, as you have and even I have. We just took different routes to handle the emotions. Try calling them what they really are, not emotions, but just a reaction. We all react one way or another.--Mark Miller (talk) 01:04, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
 * So, is this a vote for stupid or illiterate? --JBL (talk) 00:42, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Careful you might end up on Jimbos list JBL. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 01:11, 20 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Quite frankly, I think "the list" was a poorly thought out comment and I was surprised it took more than one minute for three people to latch onto it. I doubt many of the names on "the list" would surprise any of us, though. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 00:26, 20 August 2015 (UTC)


 * I think most of us just want to see if Jimbo is a man of his word. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 00:30, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
 * And we've seen that he isn't. Eric   Corbett  00:38, 20 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Oh dear God please yes. The level of inane drama-mongering here is painful. --JBL (talk) 00:42, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
 * support. neither more pro forma demands for the list nor actual production of said list have any hope of improving the encyclopedia. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  21:36, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Support. Jimbo said something stupid. Who hasn't? Get over it... AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:22, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

PLOS ONE article about Wikipedia POV-pushing in the sciences
Just caught this press release from the Cary Institute of Ecosystem Studies on Eurekalert. Here's the article on PLOS ONE. Despite the tone, I don't actually see much there - basically, they measured some article edit rates and wrote a just-so story, with an illustrative anecdote. They suggest (based on other sources) two measures to counter bias ("automatically identify and flag pages with significant controversy [24] and quantify user reputation [18]") - the latter idea sounds particularly hard to believe, and given that it's locked behind a Springer paywall I get the sense the authors of that paper weren't really serious about Wikipedians having a look at it. Still, thought I might shoot this over and see if anyone can pick out something useful. Wnt (talk) 09:50, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I saw that earlier. It seems their concerns about accuracy of scientific articles potentially deteriorating is largely theoretical because it is "difficult for experts to monitor accuracy and contribute time-consuming corrections". Everymorning (talk) 13:07, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
 * "Articles on controversial subjects get edited more" is all this article, and their research, says. Do they actually get paid to write this rubbish? --Rubbish computer 15:56, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Articles on controversial subjects are also going to be vandalized more, which will add to the total number of edits, as will reverting such vandalism. As scientific views change and science progresses, articles such as global warming are required to be changed to reflect this. --Rubbish computer 15:59, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
 * An example for the vandalism point: global warming is indefinitely semi-protected. --Rubbish computer 16:01, 16 August 2015 (UTC)


 * It is a poor article. I wrote it up here: http://scienceblogs.com/stoat/2015/08/15/content-volatility-of-scientific-topics-in-wikipedia-plowshare-prates-anag/. Boris, who does actually do science, commented It's amazing that they got a peer reviewed publication out of something so utterly trivial with no attempt at in-depth analysis or insight William M. Connolley (talk) 17:45, 16 August 2015 (UTC)


 * I don't actually think this dataset can make any claim about controversial subjects at all. It simply looks at too few articles, and there are too many explanations.  For example, do we know whether articles on subjects that are controversial in China get edited more?  For all I know (though I doubt it) Chinese editors are too polite and collegial, or at least too worried about getting hauled down to the police station and lectured about a harmonious society, and they might edit a controversial article less.  Or it might be that only articles that affect business interests with big lobbies get edited more.  We could collect that data, and we might have some guesses about it, but we can't say without doing more study.
 * Which brings us to the opportunity here. PLOS ONE wasn't intended to be a terrible journal - I would speculate they might suffered for content recently as more labs are obliged to issue preprints, which frees them up ethically to publish in a well-known copyrighted journal with fewer up front fees.  (But that's a guess as bad as these authors made...)  If a group from Wikipedia got together and did a bang-up job on statistics like this, they'd be just about honor bound to publish.  And certainly we could - Wikipedians can get together and count a lot more statistics, write software tools to do it, at the same time we can get together 50 editors to look at random articles and say how rancorous they are on a scale from 1 to 10 i.e. neutral subjective data.  Think of all the math we could do if we collect parameters on everything from the number of editors blocked shortly after editing to the geographic distribution of the places listed in the articles and make data mountains and do principal component analysis.
 * And that's when we really stick it to them, because we ought to be able to get a paper published that credits Wikipedia usernames rather than giving full authorship data for every contributor. After all, lots of labs that are particularly stingy with credit will list undergraduates by their initials in an acknowledgment rather than giving them authorship; but in our case the objective isn't to stiff the contributors but to make it so that anyone, anywhere can be a Wikipedia contributor, work casually on a research project here, and get recognition in PLOS ONE.  Once we do that - once we don't have to sign up, register, biograph and out every person listed on the paper, we make it far easier for people to make minor and spontaneous contributions to a peer-reviewed paper.  (I don't neglect that some degree of high level scrutiny on our end is required so that some named person is claiming the work is all real and not fudged)
 * Think of all the research that people on Wikipedia have done informally - the tendency of articles to link indirectly to Philosophy, gender gap data, even the formula on my userpage that at one point related number of edits to editor rank (which I really ought to look back at to see if it's changed...). Zipf's Law ought to be good for a dozen papers on its own.  We could literally make Wikipedia an academic institution with a decent publishing record.  And what comes after that?  Government grants, huge amounts of monies, eventually perhaps even enough that we could actually give compensation to every contributor.
 * So I think it would be a good thing if Wikipedia could get started on a more informative followup to this paper. Wnt (talk) 20:42, 16 August 2015 (UTC)


 * It has long been a source of bewilderment to me that we allow climate change denialists to run riot on Wikipedia. Unfortunately Wikipedia is only following in the tracks of a (predominantly US) population which, faced with scientific facts it finds ideologically threatening, feels the need to snowstorm the media with competing "facts" which are in reality complete bollocks. Look at the popularity of Donald Trump, viewed here in the UK as a comical figure, a caricature of opinionated over-entitled redneck arrogance - and he's leading the race to the endorsement of the GOP, which has a majority in the legislature. A majority which has put a climate denialist in charge of environment policy. We have endless arguments over whether calling denialists out as denialists is legitimate, because it hurts them in the feels. Wikipedia used to be a very small-l liberal project, it has accumulated a very substantial large-C conservative cadre over time, and this is detrimental to our coverage of important subjects, including and especially those related to gender politics. Guy (Help!) 21:12, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
 * , Trump may well appeal to rednecks, but he's not a redneck nor does he have redneck arrogance. (His arrogance comes from his wealth; rednecks don't have money.) Drmies (talk) 01:09, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I respectfully disagree, not because I think you are wrong about climate change, gender politics or anything else, but because I believe Wikipedia's impartiality to not be more or less compatible with either conservative or liberal viewpoints. Hopefully scientific fact ultimately takes precedence on topics such as global warming on Wikipedia, which is the general impression I get, meaning what a large number of people believe does not necessarily affect this. Fortunately, even governments do not get to decide what is written on Wikipedia. Rubbish computer 21:26, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I think everyone should be allowed to edit. That includes climate change "skeptics", anti-vaxxers, creationists, 9/11 truthers, homeopaths and everyone else. It gives a window to views that are held by large swaths of the general public. And countering their arguments helps keep us sharp. Granted this can waste huge amounts of time and cause lots of other problems (which are magnified by admins or arbcom members who are sympathetic to their causes). But there really is no other choice. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 22:27, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Do you think those who advocate physical violence against specific individuals should be allowed to edit? EllenCT (talk) 22:35, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Per WP:SOAPBOX, of course not! But I presume you mean against other editors? All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 01:13, 17 August 2015 (UTC).
 * No, I meant, should people who insist on inserting advocacy of violence against living people be allowed to edit? Whether they are editors or not should not matter. EllenCT (talk) 01:43, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Where would you draw that line? "Cecil the Lion" advocates?  "Occupy Wall Street" anarchist advocates?  Is it a form violence to advocate food crops be turned into fuel as renewable energy?  Are "Death Penalty Supporters" advocates of violence?  Are "Pro Choice Supporters" advocates of violence?  Deciding who is an advocate of violence is a minefield.  I think it would be hard to find anyone that didn't advocate violence at least through the eyes of a third party.  --DHeyward (talk) 16:50, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
 * It's not clear you read the words "specific individuals" and "living people". EllenCT (talk) 17:10, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I think I understood it. Maybe I missed something.  For example, there are editors that expressed views that violence should befall the dentist that shot a lion.  Others have expressed vies that the South Carolina Aurora shooter and the South Carolina church shooter should get the death penalty.  Those views don't make it into the article and certainly discussion is cutoff on the talk page per SOAPBOX but it does occur.  It would be very difficult to make objective value judgements about what type banter is "okay" and what is not.  Advocacy in any form is bad, but it's consensus that decides what is advocacy.  Violence isn't the criteria, it's advocacy - whether it's for or against violence is immaterial.  We shouldn't tolerate pro-life or anti-death penalty advocates more than we tolerate pro-choice or pro-death penalty advocates simply based on the perception that one is more or less violent than the other.  -DHeyward (talk) 18:02, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
 * WP:NPOV is quite sufficient to deal with those who insert such material into the encyclopaedia. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 02:10, 20 August 2015 (UTC).


 * That is the difference between objective truth and religious Truth. Their Truth is objectively false. Wikipedia is not required to allow them to assert otherwise. As Professor Brian Cox said, "The problem with today’s world is that everyone believes they have the right to express their opinion AND have others listen to it. The correct statement of individual rights is that everyone has the right to an opinion, but crucially, that opinion can be roundly ignored and even made fun of, particularly if it is demonstrably nonsense!" Climate change denial is bullshit, and advocacy of climate change denialism is antithetical tot he purpose of Wikipedia. Being respectful towards people does not require us to respect their opinions, especially when they are the result of motivated reasoning. Guy (Help!) 23:20, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
 * OK, now I see more of your POV exposing itself here. Not just this comment but several other above also. I always felt that administrators should remain neutral and not have such an obvious bias like this.  You are also appearing to be one of the more uncivil admins I have run across in a while. Just my opinion so feel free to roundly ignore it.  Nyth  63  18:43, 17 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Except the problem is there is no such thing as "Climate change denial" in any meaningful sense except as an emotional response in the mind of activists. There are accepted facts, there is data and there are theories - there are no "denialists" or "warmists".  There are many theories with very prominent scientists that simply can't all be true and that's just within IPCC.  The fact that you want to label some views as denialism but others as mainstream (even though they all conflict) shows a gross lack of understanding of the science as well as motivated reasoning that has no place here.  Go peddle demagoguery somewhere else.  Go read about Grand Unification theories and see which of those scientists we should label "denialists" because of politics.  *gasp* some scientists have different ideas about "dark matter" and "dark energy" so we must villify some of them.  Please.  --DHeyward (talk) 23:03, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Please don't be fatuous. There are some views on climate change which, while often couched in sciencey trappings, are so inconsistent with the totality of existing data that they require active denial of reality, rather than passive skepticism, to maintain. When a U.S. Senator brings a snowball into Congress in the belief that doing so "debunks" global warming, then there is clearly something pathological and deeply irrational at work. Anyhow, please forgive the digression; I guess I'm just fed up with listening to Wikipedians pontificate about how science works when they clearly don't have the first motherloving clue. MastCell Talk 04:54, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
 * That's why we call them "Senators" and not scientists. The same set of people with the same understanding of science also claimed that our children won't be able to enjoy snow anymore during a warm winter.  Just as much nonsense but no need to label them with anything other than "politician using weather to get pet project approved."  Senator NoSnow is "denying" science just as much as Senator Snowball but because one or the other backs a particular Wikipedians political solution is no reason for silly labels that are nothing more than politics couched in science.  It's easy to spot: scientists that agree completely with IPCC but then make a statement that the issue doesn't make his top 50 list of problems facing his nation or mankind, he'd be facing the "denier" label.  That's politics, not science.  --DHeyward (talk) 21:21, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

I actually think the topic might be interesting, but besides the other problems, there is an obvious issue with the statistics. They used a Geometric Mean (GM) to characterize right-skewed distributions, but GM +/- Standard Deviation, as used pervasively, makes no mathematical sense. See comment at Stoat for more explanation. JohnMashey (talk) 21:41, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I noticed that as well. Like you, I think that this was a simple error: the deviations from the geometric means should be */÷ SD, rather than +/- SD. Yes, this suggests some very large edits, but it's at least plausible (they may represent large section or page blanking followed by reverts restoring huge amounts of text, for instance). The bigger question is why the authors used statistics at all. The use of geometric means and&mdash;in particular&mdash;p values is completely superfluous given the actual data and hypothesis. Leaving aside the window dressing, the paper basically found that a set of three articles the authors selected as "controversial" (acid rain, evolution, global warming) were more heavily edited than a set of 4 articles that the authors selected as "uncontroversial". That point is made decisively by the raw edit counts of these articles. Tacking on a p value derived from non-parametric pairwise comparisons doesn't make this finding any stronger, except perhaps to people who are easily impressed by statistical language. To address one other of the manuscript's glaring conceptual flaws: there appears to be no reason why these 7 articles were selected as representative, except that the authors felt like it. The findings are obviously highly sensitive to the articles selected; one could easily choose 7 other articles, label some "controversial" and others "non-controversial", run the same R scripts, and come up with exactly the opposite finding. MastCell Talk 08:13, 17 August 2015 (UTC)


 * I fear almost the entire article falls into the Captain Obvious category.
 * What would certainly be of more real interest would be (rather than the present instance of using a pre-selected subset of articles) to run a far wider study (similar to the major readability study) seeking to see what is in common between the most unreadable articles and most readable articles, and the amount of editing done on each <g>, or between the "solid science" articles and "science articles which have gotten political notoriety", or "pure medical articles" and "articles where monetary interests may have affected edits",  or "candidate articles" v. "candidate articles where trivial events are included"  and the like - a slew of possible studies (including possibly one based on "relative readership" and "number of substantive edits" where one would count contiguous edits by an editor as a single edit, and one would remove "non-utile edits" from any counts (I was called on the carpet for calling one such edit "possible vandalism" even though it was such, so mainly say "non-utile" for edits like "the person is a kitten murderer"), bot edits, spelling and trivial edits, etc.  from the counts.)   The problem at hand is that many editors could have made the same conclusions as this article made without doing a single thing <g>. Collect (talk) 14:15, 17 August 2015 (UTC)


 * The data is three years out of date, which is rather poor too. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 01:02, 17 August 2015 (UTC).


 * I concur with many of the criticisms of the paper already made. Ultimately, the best counter-weight to a less strong research paper is to publish better research, and one way of doing that is to continue to bring together scientists and Wikipedians. I've published myself on Wikipedia in a health context ( Motivations for Contributing to Health-Related Articles on Wikipedia: An Interview Study ) and am in the middle of analysing two studies with User:Johnbod. We'll be presenting at the inaugural Wikipedia Science Conference.
 * I note that PLoS ONE allows readers' comments, so one option is to respond there.
 * While the paper seems rather naive, I do note that in some background research before doing the JMIR paper, I found hotspots of editing in a random sample of health-related articles related to certain controversial conditions, like chronic fatigue syndrome. There are clearly issues for the community around controversy and editing of controversial articles in a science/health space. Bondegezou (talk) 14:30, 17 August 2015 (UTC)


 * I was asked by another journal to peer review an earlier (and much longer) version of the paper in 2012 (obviously they ended-up not publishing it). Among many of the points made above, and others, a quick analysis of the articles chosen showed that editing volume was very strongly correlated with the level of page views, and with the number of reference sources dated within the dataset period (ie refs in Global warming were being frequently updated with more recent data, while those in Heliocentrism were not). There was also a relation with growth in the article size over the period chosen - this varied between x 3.5 and x 65. I concluded that while the paper had some use in demonstrating that these variables had impact on editing rates, the weaker relationship based on the subjective idea of (very US-centric) political controversy was not demonstrated. Anyone please let me know if more details are wanted. Johnbod (talk) 14:53, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Latest 90 day count has Acid rain with about 84K page views, and General relativity with 124K page views.  One out of three of the "Controversial" articles did not have any especially high readership.  In my experience, such an outlier tends to be a problem for any statistical claim that edits and page views have a strong correlation.  What is far more likely for correlation is "number of major media articles on the topic ('minutes of coverage' for broadcast media, I suppose)" - if the media cover a topic a great deal, it is likely that Wikipedia editors will make edits reflecting such coverage.  Wanna bet this gets a much higher statistical correlation? Collect (talk) 15:02, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Going on the latest 90 day count back in 2012 the articles neatly lined up in the same order 1-7 for the paper's editing figures & the page views: I said then "A crude index of the relationship between edit/view figures shows values between 1.40 and 2.16, with the political group averaging 1.72 and non-political 1.86, and an overall average of 1.80". The "recency of refs" would also have produced the same 1-7 order if the data period had ended a bit earlier - it was thrown by a recent spate of updating for Higgs boson. My main point was that their figures did not show what they suggested; what they might actually show was of less interest, given the inadequate sample size etc. Johnbod (talk) 17:18, 17 August 2015 (UTC)


 * It are actually the articles that are not edited frequently that are potentially more prone to contain errors. I think Jimbo commented on that some time ago here. Count Iblis (talk) 04:02, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Gizmodo piece
Gizmodo have released a piece related to the PLOS ONE piece, entitled Anti-Science trolls are starting edit wars on Wikipedia. I assumed this would be relevant, although the way these established facts are being dragged out across different media looks to me like filler. --Rubbish computer 21:47, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
 * How is this any different from homeopathy trolling ten years ago? EllenCT (talk) 21:54, 16 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Dear Gizmodo; I am shocked -- shocked I tell you -- to find out that Wikipedia articles that attract more readers also tend to have more edits. For bringing this unexpected result to our attention, I hereby award you the Captain Obvious award, and look forward to hard-hitting followup articles explaining that water is wet and politicians don't always keep their promises. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:20, 17 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Speaking of homeopathy, is water still wet if you dilute it with lots of water? Arthur goes shopping (talk) 16:55, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, but it's a special sort of wet that can cure pretty much everything. Black Kite (talk) 18:13, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Fire brigades make water wetter by adding surfactants. Shocking isn't it?  Nyth 63  20:50, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
 * That would be shocking, if it were true. Which, of course, it isn't. Surfactants don't make water "wetter". Instead, they enable water to penetrate or cling to hydrophobic surfaces more readily. That's why fire services use them to increase the efficiency of water as a fire suppressant. MastCell Talk 05:09, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
 * It seems that professional fire fighters use the "making water wetter" terminology in articles in publications like International Fire Protection Magazine. <b style="color:#070">Cullen</b><sup style="color:#707">328  Let's discuss it  05:38, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Those of us who are among the motorhead (not necessarily Motörhead) persuasion sometimes use similar language. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 14:02, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Talking about making water wetter still seems a bit wet, I think. Rubbish computer 14:05, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia has an article on Wetting and it is not proper to say "water is as wet as it can get" as it is also clear that the issue of such factors as polarity of molecules, surface tension, temperature, pressure etc. which are all relevant. So yes - surfactants are one means of making water "wetter". Wiser is to understand that the "wetness" of water depends on what the water is in contact with - which is how most people use it, including scientists. Collect (talk) 14:17, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
 * You beat me to it. I was going to reference that article.  If you read the article, it has several different measurement methods for defining wetness.  The use a surfactant increases this value in most, if not all, cases. So yes, the mixture of the water and the surfactant would be wetter than the water by itself.  It takes very little surfactant to achieve this result, that for practical purposes, it is still considered to be water and not a mixture.  Nyth  63  15:21, 18 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment What is the point of discussing the paper here? It might be interesting or not. prokaryotes (talk) 21:49, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
 * We are not really discussing it, but rather seem to analyzing a joke about it. It appears that some people have little to no sense of humor.  BTW, could someone define what a British sense of humour is?  From watching shows like BBC's  Top Gear or movies like The Holy Grail, it seems to involve a fair amount of sarcasm and absurdity but can't quite put my finger on it.   Nyth  63  23:32, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Well...cross dressing seems to be a staple of Britsh humor.....if that helps. See The Rocky Horror Show and Dame Edna for clarification.--Mark Miller (talk) 03:16, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Dame Edna is British? That's new. Similarly, the rather nasty Top Gear apparently has an international following, we'll see how well Amazon's Top Gear does. . dave souza, talk 07:20, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I think its hilarious considering the amount of scientists (or their representatives) that I have recently seen trying to push their own agendas across a large swath of politically controversial articles. Just exactly who are the trolls in these cases hmmmmm?--Mark Miller (talk) 01:12, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

For those who haven't seen it yet, the WMF Communications team published a blog post earlier this week, questioning in particular the assumption that more edits are associated with lower accuracy (several studies have found evidence to the contrary): https://blog.wikimedia.org/2015/08/18/controversy-and-edit-rates/ Regards, Tbayer (WMF) (talk) 16:27, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Early, tentative proposal for new WF entity along the lines of wikialmanac
Please see the discussion at least begun at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Days of the Year. Thank you. John Carter (talk) 18:39, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Orlowski is at it again
In the Register, he writes that "Wikimedia UK, the national charity supporting Wikipedia and its sister projects, has told the MP and former Conservative Party chairman Grant Shapps he can't see internal emails he has requested under the Freedom of Information Act ... because it's deleted them." This of course relates to the snafu involving Chase me ladies i'm the cavalry blocking Contribsx earlier this year. Another issues is that Chase me (real name Richard Symonds) still works for Wikimedia UK. Everymorning (talk) 14:12, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
 * IIRC he volunteers for WMUK rather than being employed by them. <sub style="color:green;">Fortuna  <sup style="color:red;">Imperatrix Mundi  09:50, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I see several problems here personally. First, if they still work for WMUK that should end. Based on what they did and the outcome that seems appropriate. Second Deleting something, even if its oversighted, doesn't mean its gone. Its just hidden from public view so if that were the case they should be able to get them from the WMF Main office who, I assume, would give them an appropriate response (yes or no) with some sort of justification. Also, as far as I know, the Freedom of Information Act only applies to government agencies and their representatives (congress, the white house, DoD, etc.) and some countries don't recognize it, so that argument the Register is using doesn't really hold up either. Also, although there is some connection, each of the "Wikimedia's" are separate from the WMF for just this sort of reason. So if something hits the fan, the WMF can deny any knowledge and cut ties. RingofSauron (talk) 16:32, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I imagine the Freedom of Information Act 2000 is what's being referred to, which has nothing to do with agencies in the USA. Also, Wikipedia oversight is not a tool that can be used on private emails. Finally, I am not sure what distinction you are making between "WMF Main office" and "the WMF", if any. The Wikimedia Foundation does not run Wikimedia UK's email service. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 16:55, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Since Wikimedia UK is not a public authority, I would have thought the Data Protection Act 1998 would be slightly more relevant. --Boson (talk) 23:24, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
 * That's true, but appears to be a detail that the journalist discussed here is unaware of. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 09:44, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Fortunately UK employment law does not generally condone sacking people because they made a snafu in their volunteer work. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 01:47, 21 August 2015 (UTC).

The article claims that The law firm engaged by the charity, Stone King, told Shapps that "the email had been deleted in the normal course of business, before the date of your Subject Access Request, and is therefore no longer held by the charity". That's a direct quote, so unlikely to have been faked; if true, its rather odd, as not much time has gone by. Are emails really deleted from the server so quickly, with no backup? That doesn't sound like normal policy; that sound more like deliberately deleting them quickly because you know full well you don't want to have to reveal them. El Rego continue We've asked WMUK whether it has an email retention policy, and if so what it might be, which seems like a reasonable question. Anyone know what it is? Its not https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Data_retention_guidelines William M. Connolley (talk) 19:37, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I doubt if EU privacy law gives the person concerned access to backups. Can you imagine the consequences if you had the right to demand that banks, credit rating agencies etc. (anyone that processes personal data about you) provide you with a copy of the relevant portions of all the backups they had ever made containing data about you? Where there is a right to require deletion of erroneous information, it becomes even more absurd. --Boson (talk) 16:29, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Basically Orlowski is stirring it. Why people rise to the bait every time is beyond me. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 01:47, 21 August 2015 (UTC).

WP traffic from Google declining
From Business Insider: "The amount of traffic that Google sends to Wikipedia has declined by more than 250 million visits per month, according to SimilarWeb, the traffic measurement company." Apparently Google is adding links to its own content to search results pages, rather than links to WP articles. Everymorning (talk) 14:12, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Google is specifically using a "micro-Wikipedia" <g> for searches - many folks just want date of birth, death, and a celebrity overview - rather than the generally hard-to-read (see articles on "readability of Wikipedia"), massive articles (the vast majority of future users will use mobiles or tablets) which all-too-often dominate Wikipedia. I commented a long time ago about this inevitable phenomenon, but no one noticed <+g>.   Expect Google-driven traffic to go down substantially more in future.  Collect (talk) 14:52, 14 August 2015 (UTC)  (the article you cite: The problem is that a few months ago that click might have gone to Wikipedia. And in fact the info in the Google box is drawn from Wikipedia. So on the one hand, this is good for Wikipedia (its info is featured prominently and the box does give Wikipedia a link). But on the other, Wikipedia thrives on clicks and this box is designed to save you from actually clicking through if you only need the bare bones info." which is basically what I said above as well <g>. Collect (talk) 14:54, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
 * My understanding is that the Foundation is looking into this report with preliminary indications that it is wrong. The headline in particular is almost certainly wrong: "Wikipedia suddenly lost a massive amount of traffic from Google".  We know there is a longterm issue with decreasing traffic from Google but this article makes it seem like something new and "sudden" and "massive" has happened.  It is also false that "Wikipedia thrives on clicks", as least as compared to ad-revenue driven sites.  The relationship between "clicks" and the things we care about: community health and encyclopedia quality is not nothing, but it's not as direct as some think.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 14:58, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
 * There is a direct correlation between people that read the actual wikipedia article, and click our actual edit-button for the first time. Wikipedia does thrive on clicks, in that sense.  There is also a significant risk that google might just decide to fork wikipedia content, into their own project, a la Google Knol (2008-2012) v2.0 to be specific, and stop linking to wikipedia entirely (when they can).  In this sort of scenario, the difficult-to-read state of many wikipedia articles is an advantage of sorts... it encourages people to click edit, and fix the problems.  They cannot do so, if they never leave the GOOG.  Please note, I'm not advocating we make our articles even messier, as a means of making it even *more* tempting for the readership to pitch in and help edit.  I am advocating we see the siphoning of our click-traffic as a direct and potentially fatal threat.  We are still a long way from the google-backed fork, as far as I know, but we are experiencing a bad long-term trend in new-editor-retention, and simultaneously a bad long-term trend in click-through from the #1 search engine, a one-time-and-potential-future competitor for serving up encyclopedic content.  Wikipedia doesn't need the money-revenues from clicks, that is true, but we do need the editor-influx, I submit.   75.108.94.227 (talk) 16:37, 14 August 2015 (UTC)


 * This is probably an excellent time for me to point out that there is no provable connection between the growth of the Google "Knowledge Box" and the related decline of direct hits on the WP site on the one hand and the size of the core editing community on the other. The numbers for June are UP IN THE USUAL PLACE and they show the count of Very Active Editors (100+ edits in June) to be up once again over the weak figures of 2014. Indeed, the count of Very Active Editors at WP in June 2015 (3,241) not only erased the June 2014 decline, but also topped June 2013 (3,202), June 2012 (3,217), and very nearly met June 2011 (3,278). So: no panicking, this is no demonstrable connection between overall site traffic and size of the core volunteer community. Carrite (talk) 17:08, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Theorizing why this is so: very casual users of WP are not the source of long-term volunteers; the latter come to the encyclopedia on their own, not via proximity generated by random Google hits. I've heard it said that "Wikipedians are born, not made." Given the terrible track record of edit-a-thons and university class projects in creating lasting Wikipedians, this ironic line may well be somewhat true. Carrite (talk) 17:20, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Further theorizing, I note there is a JimboTalk section just above, about the rise of paid editing, disclosed and undisclosed. (The Atlantic also says that wikipedia is no longer merely a place that regular people get information, but the place regular people get information.  Which is good news as far as it goes.)  I agree with you that most true wikipedians are "born not made" aka have to be genetically predisposed to liking it here... but I would suggest that, per my own anecdotal experience and stuff like the Atlantic article, that there are some faux wikipedians that are "paid not made" aka they are able to successfully make a lot of edits not because they have the mental predisposition of a born-not-made editor, but because they have financial incentive to learn the wiki-ropes.  If we get into a dualing-encyclopedia match with Google, guess which of those offerings is going to be a more profitable environment for paid editors, disclosed or undisclosed?  To be clear, I think that "faux" editors with COI have a useful place here on wikipedia, but I strongly suspect that the recent reversal of years of steady decline in editorship is not because there are magically more genetically-predisposed-wikipedians being born into the world (and certainly not because the wiki-rules have been recently simplified nor the wiki-culture recently nice-ified!), but rather, the new uptick is merely a symptom of the not-very-magical fairly-recent-but-growing appearance of a large number of financially-incentivized-wikipedians.  Do we have any data on that distinction, i.e. what percentage of the recent uptick is due to cold hard cash? 75.108.94.227 (talk) 18:12, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
 * My own take is that the population of core Wikipedians is stable and has been more or less stable for coming on 5 years, after the "fad" of 2005-2007 died down. Of course, WMF is way too busy with whatever to actually figure out who its 10,000 or so core volunteers across all projects are, so we are all just guessing rather than working off hard data. I doubt that the paid hands are racking up 100 edits a month (I should probably quiz A Prominent Paid Editor about the count for an average paid job). Carrite (talk) 05:33, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
 * ............and so I asked A Prominent Paid Editor the following: "Would it be, generally speaking, fair to assume that a typical paid editor would not be getting to 100 edits per month? These are usually like 15 edits by a SPA, correct? I'll enlighten the masses with your response unless you tell me not to do this." To this Mr. or Ms. Prominent Paid Editor replied: "Those are fair assumptions for the paid editors who use one or two accounts per project/client. Maybe more like 20 for me." — So, there are doubtlessly a handful of known multiple-paid-editing-jobs accounts that contribute to the monthly Very Active Editor count (insiders could probably almost recite them by name), but the under-the-radar Paid PR types use throwaway accounts that aren't gonna get to 100. In short, the Professional Paid component of the Very Active Editor count is probably small. Carrite (talk) 15:44, 16 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Clicks are useful, because they allow us to measure stuff. That's pretty much it.  If people were hitting local caches of Wikipedia, then we would get many fewer clicks (and need less hardware/bandwidth).  But the goal of providing them the information would be met, and probably faster.
 * All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 20:39, 15 August 2015 (UTC).

It's important to remember that Google has started using Wikipedia both to identify news stories and trends by locale, and improve the accuracy of Page Rank search result ordering. And anyone who uses Google Search can't help but notice that for most of the search terms which are directly associated with an article, snippets from the first sentences appear twice and have for about a year. That alone could explain the drop in click-throughs. However Wikipedia is included as a search term less often than it used to be, but still much more often than popular news sources. EllenCT (talk) 01:55, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Jimbo said; "My understanding is that the Foundation is looking into this report with preliminary indications that it is wrong." Well....my cursory belief, off the top of my head is; "It is way off". Lets see how far the two sides meet but frankly, it seems like little more than bashing the site with wishful thinking by haters. But what do I know. ;)--Mark Miller (talk) 07:17, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Now it seems Jimbo's remarks in this section have been covered by Search Engine Land: Everymorning (talk) 20:05, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
 * The question is, why is there a decline in Wikipedia’s traffic from Google? Some have theorized it might have to do with the Google Answer box, others say the algorithm has changed. It is hard to say for sure, but overall, it’s clear that Wikipedia is noticing a steady decline in traffic from Google. — Supposing that interest in Wikipedia has declined and fewer users click on links to Wikipedia in their search results, Google has probably just adapted its algorithm and now ranks Wikipedia lower compared to other websites. Nothing spectacular. Reasons might be that Wikipedia content has become less useful to people as it used to be. After all, Wikipedia is nothing new and spectacular any more. That was easy. ;) --79.218.93.143 (talk) 21:42, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Business Insider has released another piece on this subject, this time about Wales' comments in this section. Everymorning (talk) 14:16, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

The people reading this thread may find published by my team's analysis group interesting. In short, based on the data available to us, Wikipedia has not seen a decrease in referrals from Google; in fact, referrals from Google are trending upwards slightly. --Dan Garry, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 05:11, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Looking at medical readership while trying to take into account the rise of mobile, the decrease in readership appears to have occured in the first half of 2013  Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 17:02, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Template:Age
Template:Age maintains up-to-date ages. —Wavelength (talk) 01:41, 18 August 2015 (UTC) and 01:46, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
 * The wikicode 34 returns "34".
 * The wikicode is a 34 -year-old person returns "is a 34-year-old person".
 * The wikicode is 34 years old returns "is 34 years old".


 * I'm not sure what your point is, but if you are 26 years old today, happy birthday! Smallbones( smalltalk ) 02:13, 18 August 2015 (UTC)


 * My point is to publicize this template to Jimbo Wales and to editors who watch this page.
 * —Wavelength (talk) 02:15, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Wouldn't it be great if the syntax of such things wasn't so awful? What if instead, we could write $subject.age and have that render as '26'. If someone wrote $subject.age into a page, and no age was known by the system, a box would pop up asking to enter the date of birth. This would then populate the infobox, which would itself not be wikitext but would instead be populated from (and to) wikidata or similar. A lot was made possible by a paradigm of raw wikitext plus templates. But imagine a different paradigm.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 02:30, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Yep that would be cool. But what happens if someone cuts "Jimmy Wales is a $subject.age guy with a beard." from your article and pastes it into Sue Gardner - suddenly you loose a year....
 * As to Wikidata and infoboxen, that is an increasingly widely used paradigm.
 * All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 00:21, 21 August 2015 (UTC).


 * I can imagine it. Unfortunately, I can't imagine it being developed by the people responsible for the present system. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:48, 18 August 2015 (UTC)


 * There are a number of Wikipedia editors like me with years of experience managing software projects who would be glad to volunteer our time to improve the Wikimedia software. Alas, every time I have made any suggestion in that area the response has been a wall of silence from the WMF. (Related:)


 * As an example of a totally noncontroversial and easy-to-implement suggestion that has been ignored multiple times, in the HTML that Wikipedia sends to the browser, every line sent to the browser has a DOS-style carriage return and line feed (Hex OD OA) as a line ending. If we used a Unix-style line feed (Hex 0A), that would save one byte on every single line of HTML on Wikipedia (actually HTML works just fine with both the carriage return and the line feed removed, but let's just discuss (OD OA) vs (OA) for now). We could ease into this by making the line ending configurable in the preferences with the default (OD OA) and make (OA) a user-selectable option, then after we are sure there are no bad effects, change the default for new users. This would be easy to do, would benefit our readers, and would reduce our operating costs by a small amount. So why am I unable to get anyone at the WMF to discuss the merits of doing this? Not even a "no". Just silence and stonewalling. -Guy Macon (talk) 13:59, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Right there's your problem. You are mixing up you capital o: O with zero: 0.  The hex should be (0D 0A) rather than (OD OA).  See, I just saved you from years of headaches!  Nyth  63  23:37, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Instead of trying to get a discussion of the merits, which seem clearly positive but rather slim, why don't you open a PHP RFC https://wiki.php.net/rfc on modifing PHP so that everyone, not just Mediawiki sites, benefits? EllenCT (talk) 15:39, 18 August 2015 (UTC)


 * First, PHP already supports either kind of line termination:
 * Second, I have over a dozen software issues that are waiting for a WMF response that will never come. I just picked the one that was easiest to understand and least controversial for my example. Most of the others will require a deep technical discussion to explore whether they are worth doing. And that is the real issue. The WMF sets up these pages where we can supposedly make suggestions and then nobody at the WMF reads them. For example. look at this diff: Now look at the page history and show me any evidence that anyone on the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees reads the Wikimedia Foundation Board noticeboard. Or evidence that anyone in WMF engineering reads any page that is set up so that Wikipedia editors can communicate with them. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:35, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Have you tried posting to wikitech-l, pinging the pertinent code review staff on Freenode's #mediawiki and #wikimedia-dev IRC channels, and Tweeting or posting to the Facebook pages of whoever is in charge of allocating Engineering's code review resources? EllenCT (talk) 17:02, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
 * How is it remotely appropriate that anyone should have to use multiple channels of communication in order to attract the attention of developers? AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:36, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Should have or has? EllenCT (talk) 19:57, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, someone please hire a support help desk of 20 people, so that people stop having to do that. And then please approve the budget for that at the same time. —Th e DJ (talk • contribs) 19:36, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Just in case you're serious WMF could easily afford to do what you say. As of its last financial statement WMF had about $89M in net assets, equal to roughly two years of expenses.
 * I suspect that part of the problem is that stuff like bug fixing and simple tweaking is unglamorous work compared to developing new features. That's not a knock on WMF; it's that way in the commercial software world as well. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:33, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Twitter? Facebook? IRC? Why not suggest that I try USENET or Gopher? If I ever decide to use social media to try to fix the problem of the WMF stonewalling me, I will raise a stink on Slashdot, Wikipediocracy, and Reddit. Or we could -- you know -- fix the problem. I'm just saying. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:16, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
 * You are so upset about having been ignored by developers, that you have decided to boycott the channels which the developers actually use to allocate their attention, and turn to commentary fora less frequented by developers? What could possibly go wrong? Answer me or suffer the consequences of a sternly worded Quora query and a snide remark on Ars Technica and the Ladies Home Journal letters column. EllenCT (talk) 19:57, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I am hoping for a sarcastic headline on Drudge. :) (And I am not "upset", My actual emotional state when discussing this is bemused detachment and cynicism.)
 * Twitter? Facebook? IRC? Why not suggest that I try USENET or Gopher? If I ever decide to use social media to try to fix the problem of the WMF stonewalling me, I will raise a stink on Slashdot, Wikipediocracy, and Reddit. Or we could -- you know -- fix the problem. I'm just saying. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:16, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
 * You are so upset about having been ignored by developers, that you have decided to boycott the channels which the developers actually use to allocate their attention, and turn to commentary fora less frequented by developers? What could possibly go wrong? Answer me or suffer the consequences of a sternly worded Quora query and a snide remark on Ars Technica and the Ladies Home Journal letters column. EllenCT (talk) 19:57, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I am hoping for a sarcastic headline on Drudge. :) (And I am not "upset", My actual emotional state when discussing this is bemused detachment and cynicism.)


 * Actually, it isn't just the developers. That's just the example I chose. I could have just as easily picked as an example the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees stonewalling reasonable questions posted on their noticeboard. Any solution you suggest has to work for the WMF developers ignoring community questions, the WMF board ignoring community questions, the WMF accounting department ignoring community questions, etc. It's a WMF-wide problem, not a WMF-delevopers problem.


 * As for the developers not responding to anything posted anywhere on Wikipedia or meta, before I start attempting to engage them on Twitter or Facebook, I need some actual evidence that those are, in your words "the channels which the developers actually use to allocate their attention". I would also note that every time I have seen anyone attempt to start a conversation about something like this in a forum dedicated to reporting bugs, it gets instantly deleted (and rightly so).


 * Finally, the very fact that in this very conversation I am, as usual, conversing with a Wikipedia editor who is a self-appointed WMF apologist while, as usual. The WMF remains silent is pretty strong evidence that the WMF does indeed stonewall reasonable questions from the Wikipedia community. Again I refer you to the questions I asked at Wikimedia Foundation Board noticeboard#Accountability to the community. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:03, 20 August 2015 (UTC)


 * I can empathize with the problem of trying to get IT changes through the WMF. I spoke to some of the WMF people in Mexico and they were quite candid that one of the problems was in evaluating and prioritising a thousand different possible enhancements for mediawiki, so I took the liberty of making a proposal in the Idea lab for Community prioritised IT developments, might that solve the problem?  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  20:42, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you. diff for Guy. EllenCT (talk) 21:45, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Excellent. I ran into a strange bug a few days ago, then realised it was an expression of a bug that we have known about for ten years.  Very frustrating.  As for the syntax of "age" and associated templates they are pretty good. For example:


 * - August 7, 1966. Wavelength made things a bit more complex by including the "example text" markup.  And it can be improved further without needing to bother the bureaucrats.  All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 00:16, 21 August 2015 (UTC).


 * User:Rich Farmbrough, thank you for illustrating Template:Birth date and age, which is especially useful for infoboxes. Category:Wikipedia templates has many useful templates to be discovered.  I have been making corrections by adding or removing hyphens, in conformity with MOS:HYPHEN, sub-subsection 3, points 3 and 7 and 8.  In the course of doing so, I have noticed a few instances of "temporarily true" information, such as "is 26 years old", which will be out of date within a 12-month period, if it is not out of date already.  I have made the necessary corrections and continued to other articles, without ascertaining whether the information is up to date in those instances.  Also, I have found a few instances where Template:Age is already used, and the information is "permanently true" during the respective lifetimes, although that is not obvious from the displayed text.  I have spent several months in making these corrections, beginning the "26" set today, and I hope to pass "30" by the end of August, "50" by the end of September, and "100" by the end of October.
 * —Wavelength (talk) 02:08, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I suggest you look at WP:AWB, you will be able to finish the hyphenation conversion in a day or two. I would do it for you, but alas, the powers that be will not permit such hubris. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 02:16, 21 August 2015 (UTC).


 * Although I do not use AWB, I have participated in various discussions about it, including the following ones.
 * Wikipedia talk:AutoWikiBrowser/Typos/Archive 3 (December 2013)
 * Wikipedia talk:AutoWikiBrowser/Typos/Archive 4 (March–May 2015)
 * Wikipedia talk:AutoWikiBrowser/Typos/Archive 4 (March–May 2015)
 * —Wavelength (talk) 15:28, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

User page edit war
This edit added content that has been removed and added several times, but I can not figure out what the source is or if it should even be in there. I does not appear to be either an original or recent line from Jimmy. Does his user page need to be semi-protected again?  Nyth 63  13:51, 20 August 2015 (UTC)


 * You should probably discuss this with the users involved first. One IP editor added something in good faith, they were reverted and somebody else then reverted them. This edit should be discussed but unless there is persistent disruptive editing by unregistered or new users, semi-protection is not necessary. The only other thing I can think of is asking if he approves of this edit. Rubbish computer 14:29, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
 * It seems fine to me. Am I missing something about it?--Jimbo Wales (talk) 14:59, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Rubbish, I assumed that Jimmy occasionally reads his talk page and would eventually chime in about this. I understand what a good faith edit is, but still feel that we should not be putting words in someone else's mouth. I'm glad that you (Jimmy) are OK with it, I was just concerned that it was unsourced.  Nyth  63  15:36, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you for helping. I knew you knew what good faith was, I just thought that even if, for example, one editor was vandalizing the page consistently, they could be blocked without having to semi-protect the page again. I sympathise with your concern, though, as the edit did appear to be putting words in Jimbo's mouth. Rubbish computer 16:16, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: the IP editor who originally made the edit,, has been blocked for 3 months per . Rubbish computer 00:56, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
 * It's a rangeblock, so I'm not sure you can specifically say that the aforementioned IP was who the block was targeted at. Dustin  ( talk ) 01:10, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

No, but the IP was included in the block: I guess that's what I should have said. Rubbish computer 09:52, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Archiving of pages nominated for speedy deletion
Plenty of WP articles that have been tagged for speedy deletion and were deleted can be found in Google search results through their cache. E.g. the copy-and-paste job Christopher Francis O'Hare. Do you think this is a problem, Jimbo? Everymorning (talk) 20:05, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm fairly certain that Google only retains such cached content for a limited time. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:08, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Google usually rescans Wikipedia roughly every four hours, so the cached version of an existing page should never be more than a few hours old. The problem with deleted pages is that if Google's crawlers don't get a hit on a page they're expecting to exist, they retain the old cache for between 10-30 days (in case there was a problem with the WMF servers, or the page was temporarily and incorrectly moved), meaning pages that are deleted without anything else added in their place (a redirect, a 'clean' version, etc) tend to hang about in Google's cache for much longer. They're very unlikely to change this policy, since it would seriously impact one of Google's more useful functions—it's no secret that the WMF servers have a habit of crashing at inconvenient times. &#8209; iridescent 23:58, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Apart from perhaps G10/G12s, those are generally available anyways: Category:Wikipedia administrators willing to provide copies of deleted articles. Wily D 05:10, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

is Gawker a good source for sensational claims?
is at issue - the original published source per actual sources is Gawker, and they all hedge this by using the term "rumour" etc. Will anyone weigh in on either side? I also fear we may set a precedent from using allegations based on unconfirmed data from a hacked source. As always, I find "celebrity gossip" sources to be about as vile and unreliable as any on this planet, but your mileage may vary. Cheers. Collect (talk) 15:28, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Gawker, charming people that they are, host a lot of trash on their website. Perhaps their worst offense is the leaked and stolen nude photos and sex tapes of various celebrities which they link to and spread on their site without consent. This seems within the same general spectrum of trashiness that shouldn't be in an encyclopedia article. Brustopher (talk) 16:11, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
 * At this point, even if Gawker were reliable, I don't believe this information should be included due to presumption in favor of privacy.  Nyth 63  16:18, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
 * As far as Gawker, I'd avoid it, but it's foolish to suggest we can offer meaningful privacy to someone when that information is being splashed across every media outlet there is. Linking to presumption in favor of privacy is a bit strange, though, given that the second case WP:PUBLICFIGURE has a pretty on-point example:

"Example: A politician is alleged to have had an affair. He or she denies it, but multiple major newspapers publish the allegations, and there is a public scandal. The allegation belongs in the biography, citing those sources. However, it should only state that the politician was alleged to have had the affair, not that he or she actually did. If the subject has denied such allegations, that should also be reported."


 * No, What part of Presumption of privacy do you not understand? Trial by media is not the same as trial by court. If there is a court case involved, that is different.  Nyth 63  17:09, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
 * What? No, read the policy, read the exactly on point example.  You're not ever going to end up in court for having an affair.  Presumption of privacy says you should presume things are private, not that you should conclude things are private.  When a scandal is only being reported by a letter to the editor in the Kookynie Gazette, it's sensible to presume we shouldn't cover it.  When something is being reported by the BBC, you can draw the conclusion that it's public information, and the presumption of privacy falls apart, because you know it isn't private.  Wily D  09:05, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
 * But trying to guess the long term impact of recent events is always guesswork, and people are going to disagree. But on the day the BBC is reporting it, it's not meaningful for us to pretend we're somehow virtuous by pretending we're stuffy academics who don't notice the day-to-day, either. Wily D  16:31, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia in not news, does not interpret events, nor predict the future. And the article you linked uses the word allegation again in connection with the BLP we are discussing here, so it is not reliable nor verifiable information and should not be included in an encyclopedia.  Nyth 63  17:09, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not news, but we do try to gauge the significance of events when trying to decide whether to include them in articles. Beyond that, read the policy you yourself linked on how to deal with cases like this - it says to include the information, while making clear it's an allegation (although buddy has since admitted it's all true, so we're passed that) Wily D  09:09, 21 August 2015 (UTC)


 * The quotation from WP:PUBLICFIGURE applies pretty directly. I really doubt we're going to keep this out of the article for long. Yes, we're not news, so no rush I suppose -- but surely it's obvious where this is headed.  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:39, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I think this person does not quite meet the definition of a Public Figure. Refer to A fairly high threshold of public activity is necessary to elevate people to public figure status. Typically, they must either be: a public figure, either a public official or any other person pervasively involved in public affairs, or a limited purpose public figure, meaning those who have "thrust themselves to the forefront of particular public controversies in order to influence the resolution of the issues involved".. He is not an elected official of any type and he certainly was not pervasive nor at the forefront of of any issues before these allegations were brought up.  Nyth 63  17:54, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Well that's silly. Most of the adult population in the US knows who this person is; choosing to be a reality tv star is not exactly hiding in the shadows....  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:56, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Well that's silly. I guess I never whatched whatever show he was on so I did not know who this person was.  Do you have a source that claims that Most of the adults in the US know who he is?  I really doubt you can prove that.  At at any rate, that would make him a celebrity, NOT a public figure which is what the reference by Nomoskedasticity was about.  Not the same thing.   Nyth  63  01:57, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
 * He hardly chose it. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 01:51, 21 August 2015 (UTC).


 * He did, however, chose to be an important lobbyist who was pervasively involved in public affairs, or a limited purpose public figure, meaning those who have "thrust themselves to the forefront of particular public controversies in order to influence the resolution of the issues involved. Wily D 09:09, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Define pervasively. I'm not sure this applies as I never heard of him before this.  At best he appears to be a minor character from a reality TV show, so does not qualify as a celebrity either, much less a public figure. Why does it appear there are so many editors here that are so willing to gleefully crucify this guy? This is worse than a bunch of church gossip ladies.  Nyth  63  11:36, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
 * As a limited purpose public figure, his role as head of FRC Action is probably far more important here. In general, people are often not super keen about child molesters, but I don't harbour him any more malice than I would any other child molester.   What I don't like here is us as a Wikipedia community being made to look like a bunch of idiots or self-important fools, saying "Sure, it's all over the BBC, CNN, the Guardian, but those fish-wrappers pale in comparison to Wikipedia, the world's only information source, and we're far to important to mention the trivialities they delve into.  Wily D  14:37, 21 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Collect wrote: I also fear we may set a precedent from using allegations based on unconfirmed data from a hacked source. Oh, if only he were so circumspect and conscientious when the hackees were climate scientists, rather than right-wing lobbyists! But then, foolish consistency &c. Duggar is arguably a limited-purpose public figure, since he makes his living lobbying on behalf of the Family Research Council on social issues, "traditional marriage", and so forth. In any case, while Gawker alone isn't a good enough source for this kind of stuff, it's a bit more complicated since Duggar himself has now acknowledged that the allegations are true. I guess I still feel like this sort of detail is unencyclopedic and tabloidy (for that matter, I don't think Duggar himself is notable enough for a standalone article). MastCell Talk 19:58, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I note you love ad hominem attacks - my sole edit on the CRU email article was .  How you manage to make it seem as though I was active in that issue is quite beyond rational thought, unless it is simply that you wish to attack me here - like the other long term harassers (evidence sent long ago to ArbCom).  I made a total of precisely zero salient to taking a position on the used of hacked email edits to that article talk page, but you make it seem here as though I deliberately supported use of hacked materials.    On the main CRU article,    I have never made a single blessed edit, but you imply that I sought to use improperly gained records.    On the CRU talk page I made this edit back in 2009:  (":::WP:AGF and WP:NPA still apply. We are here to see if the ref is RS by WP standards, not to call a cite "arcane" or "derogatory" and most specifically not to impugn "deniers and skeptics." And I find impugning motives of editors to be a tad improper, indeed. Collect (talk) 16:33, 6 December 2009 (UTC)")  Which was and is my opinion.  Also a scattering of comments none of which remotely supports the innuendo made above.   In fact, I suggest that this bit of snark above is about as poor a use of this user page as Jimbo has ever seen.    Barf bags available. Collect (talk) 20:59, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
 * You made "a total of precisely zero edits" to the CRU email controversy talk page? Let's test that assertion: one, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight, nine, ten... there are more, but I'm tired of counting, and ten is already infinitely more than zero. Suffice to say that when you claim to have made zero edits to the talkpage, you are straight-up lying. Why you would choose to lie about this is beyond me; it's not particularly relevant to the topic of this thread, but it's worth highlighting as a lesson to people who still take your assertions at face value. MastCell Talk 23:38, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
 * You never give up. I never said "use hacked emails" - I said, and would say again, we rely on reliable sources as a matter of policy.  Your faux umbrage seems more directed at me, personally, than at the topic of this section -- I recognize you hate me with a depth I can not comprehend, but  I have emended my post (I did not regard posts which say we use Wikipedia policy to define WP:RS and the like to make me out to be a horrid blatant God-defying liar, but you choose to make this a splendid example of WP:HARASSMENT by posting personal attacks on this page.   Your "infiniteth" example was me stating that I supported the name which others also supported for the article. In point of fact, any sane editor here would agree with every post you allege in some way indicates I wanted to use "hacked emails" as you clearly had no basis in fact for that assertion you so gleefully made - In fact note the tenth ("infinite") post you cite:   Qualified support Agree that "Climatic Research Unit documents incident" is neutral and accurate. User:Collect|Collect (User talk:Collect|talk) 16:50, 11 December 2009 (UTC)"  Which was correct and remains correct.  Now go to whatever place you came from and stop this infinite, infernal, iterated and repeated feeling that you must make personal attacks on me wheresoever I post.  I suggest, in fact, that you stop stalking my posts.  With warmest (to the "infinite" degree) regards. Collect (talk) 11:58, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
 * There's no need to be melodramatic. I don't "hate" you, although I'm irritated by hypocrisy and dishonesty and, after 9 years of saturation on Wikipedia, no longer very good at hiding that irritation. Don't make claims that aren't true, and we're good. It's a low bar. The "stalking" thing is just silly; I literally have no idea what you've been up to since your ArbCom case closed, and I don't think I've interacted with you since. MastCell Talk 18:01, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Actually the person making the personal attack was ... you. I did not follow you here, or use mu comments here to attack you. All I did was rebut your attack on me - and suggest that your snark here trying to blame me for your post is interesting.  Would you really like a lit of edits you have made in response to my comments across many many pages?    Collect (talk) 18:11, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

In all cases like this, where really big BLP issues are at stake, I recommend we proceed cautiously. As it turns out, he appears to have confessed to it, and reliable sources are now available.
 * Rather vague apology that does not actually mention Ashley Madison. He could be confessing to thinking about infidelity for all I can tell. Look up Exodus 20:17.  Nyth 63  02:33, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
 * And I would have to question the Guardian as a reliable source as their headline misrepresents the published apology. Their headline Josh Duggar admits to being 'biggest hypocrite' for using Ashley Madison is demonstrably false as the apology does NOT mention Ashley Madison.  Nyth  63  02:37, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
 * The Guardian is not so stupid that everything has to be spelt out for them. Duggar admitted to being the 'biggest hypocrite' for cheating on his wife, which the Guardian (and CNN) concluded from the timing of events referred to Ashley Madison (perhaps among others, seeing the news this morning).  Wily D  09:17, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
 * See WP:SYNTH. Speculation is not proof. That makes them stupid as well as anybody who believes them.  Nyth  63  11:59, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Err, perhaps read SYNTH before quoting it at me. SYNTH refers to our actions as Wikipedia authors in synthesising published information.  It does not prevent us from including conclusions published in reliable sources (indeed, basically every bit of information we include has been synthesised from numerous observations by others).  Wily D  14:29, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Err, I don't see a policy that requires Wikipedia to include information that is demonstrably false. I don't care whether you call it syntheses, connecting the dots, or jumping to conclusion, but to claim that someone confessed to something that they in fact, did not, is just wrong and stupid no matter who publishes it or repeats it.  Nyth  63  11:34, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
 * The problem, of course, is that it's not demonstratably false. It's a collection of true facts and obvious inferences.  Someone has to be the first person to report a fact, they're always drawing an inference.  Whether it's the Guardian, or whoever else.  He confessed to being a hypocrite and cheating on his wife because he was caught using Ashley Madison (among perhaps others), and the Guardian reports it was a fact that he used Ashley Madison despite the Humian objections one can raise like "But we can't prove the existence of cause and effect", because any person honestly examining the evidence in good faith couldn't come to any other conclusion.  Wily D  09:27, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
 * The problem, of course, is that it is NOT demonstrably true.  Nyth 63  22:55, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Actually, this isn't even true. Gawker is the source that first discovered & published that Josh Duggar was using Ashley Madison; but we just questioned how reliable Gawker is.  As additional information piled in, other sources came to the same conclusion; but actually, Gawker is the first source to discover Duggar was using Ashley Madison, and his confession to being a hypocrite, cheating on his wife, etc. did come afterwards, exactly as the Guardian claimed. Wily D  09:33, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
 * In general, for the next several days at least, we are likely to see a large number of these rumors. I think we should not include them so long as they are just rumors, generally even if they are rumors mentioned or repeated in reliable sources, but only upon confirmation in reliable sources and significant coverage.  (Being included in a mere list wouldn't be notable, I think.)
 * To save the trolls a bit of time looking, although I trust that the full-time ones already did - I'm not on the list. :) --Jimbo Wales (talk) 22:56, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Not to worry, I'm sure that if your name was there, it would have been almost the first to be mentioned. Glad to see we can still bring some levity to this whole silly mess.  Nyth 63  02:30, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Perhaps people might like to consider that in previous cases of "behaviour judged by credit card number" a very large percentage of stolen credit cards were in the mix. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 01:56, 21 August 2015 (UTC).


 * Note an "anonymous IP" appeared whose sole and only purpose was to harass me by filing an AE complaint - saying that Josh Duggar is clearly a "US political topic!" And no one noted that the complainant is a blatant and absolutely certain sock.  Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:06, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, he was the head lobbyist for a fairly major political organisation in the States - I would certainly say Josh Duggar is an American political topic. Regardless of the motivation of the complainer. Wily D  14:38, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
 * “And no one noted that the complainant is a blatant and absolutely certain sock.” When I suggested dismissing the complaint at AE, I referred to the complainant as a “newly minted IP troll.” Chary of jumping to conclusions about meat- or sock-puppetry, I thought the wording was enough to raise the question in intelligent minds. An administrator redacted it. (Later, when at BLPN Collect characterized the AE complaint as “harassment”—the now well-worn pejorative which, when used in response to comments that take issue with Collect’s, bends them to his victim narrative—I struck the entire comment.) Writegeist (talk) 19:01, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Collect should stay away from that article, as this person was until very recently the Executive Director of the Family Research Council, a an American conservative Christian group and lobbying organization. -   Cwobeel   (talk)  19:14, 21 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep I'm going to go in a different direction than most here. There are plenty of sources besides Gawker, like CNN that report this as a confirmed fact, not a rumor. USA Today reported that the article-subject admitted to it. There is no questioning the facts. The New Yorker is about as BLP-compliant as it gets. The sources clearly explain the significance being that the article-subject has been an out-spoken advocate for "family values", while not practicing what he's preaching. Gawker may not be a good source, but there are plenty of better ones available. CorporateM (Talk) 18:57, 22 August 2015 (UTC)


 * One should be careful with claims like this - initially, you'd be trusting Gawker to read the genuine data dump, the hackers not to have inserted records for their amusement, and Ashley Madison not to have made up his account or have let someone else do it with unconfirmed data and a stolen CC number (which doesn't seem that hard to get in this day and age!) It's important to make sure you say exactly what the source says, especially when it comes to any weaselling.  And if there is enough weaselling, that can make a fact unsuitable for inclusion in a BLP, per the "presented as true" criterion - if all we knew is a site had a record that said Duggar was a member, and a source quoted that but didn't say they knew, as journalists, that he was a member, then it's not a fact about Duggar, only about the site.  But of course, the ship has sailed on this one some time ago. Wnt (talk) 16:58, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia is under threat (huge audience can be lost)
Hi Jimbo. Wikipedia can be blocked in Russia (is written on any page). Your administrators deleted an article about Vsevolod Chaplin - not long time ago (main helper of the Patriarch Kirill). Russian Church is very strong now. This can be reason (I dont know on 100%). But not because of any article about drugs. Wikipedia does not violate laws of any country. And else: Russian Wikipedia creates damage for the reputation of the United Russia (additional reason). This very related to Alexei Navalny. I ask not convert me in Need1521 (I have no any relation to him). I want help only (understand reasons better). White Tiger 2015 (talk) 22:18, 24 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Despite my opposition to censorship as stated above, this person has a point that Vesvolod Chaplin should have an article on Wikipedia. He appears notable -  and is mentioned several times in other articles already.  The previous deletion is explained as a 'lack of substantive content' i.e. it simply didn't say anything much at all, according to whoever deleted it. Wnt (talk) 22:59, 24 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Ya well we might still get banned anyway: . We may go the way of cheese and memes. <b style="color:Blue">Chillum</b> 00:36, 25 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Or User:Putin can ask the Russian ArbCom to consider imposing new rules for articles on drugs. Count Iblis (talk) 00:49, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Seriously, renouncing Ayn Rand's misogyny and trickle down
Jimbo, my recommendation that the best thing you could do for women in general and female editors in particular is to take a firm stand renouncing Ayn Rand's misogyny and supply side trickle down economics is sincere. I want to get away from the silliness of the Cracked thread and ask you for your considered opinion on the proposal. I don't think there would be any downside to doing so, and I do think it would have profoundly positive effects on the community. Given the support that demand side economics enjoys in the peer reviewed literature reviews and meta-analyses, and given the similar extent to which supply side is opposed by those reliable secondary sources, it would really help people understand that you expect them to conform to our criteria. Please do share your thoughts. EllenCT (talk) 16:53, 21 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Um, what? As much as I think that Rand was at least a borderline sociopath, and that supply-side economics is prime-grade bullshit, I don't think that it is appropriate for the Wikipedia community to impose 'criteria' on political opinions, and demand that people 'conform'. Seriously misguided... AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:05, 21 August 2015 (UTC)


 * I second AndyTheGrump on this. Wikipedia should not attempt to increase its appeal to new editors by getting involved in politics, therefore compromising its neutrality. --Rubbish computer 17:51, 21 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia is deeply involved in politics, whether we like it or not. That isn't the issue. The point is that it isn't appropriate for the community (or anyone suggesting that they are making proposals for the benefit of the community) to ask for contributors (or anyone else involved with the project) to 'renounce' their views. If Jimbo thinks that Rand is Ra, and that trickle-down economics is the way she spreads her eternal sunshine, that is his concern, not ours. If he were to attempt to impose his views on article content, that would be another matter, but I can't see much evidence of that. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:07, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

I see what you mean. Rubbish computer 18:38, 21 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Homeopathy is a great example. It's a big business, so paid advocates and true believers manufacture controversy in support of it, which makes it political. But you're right, that shouldn't concern us. The criteria are the reliable source criteria, which state that as a tertiary source, the encyclopedia must prefer the secondary preferably peer reviewed literature reviews and meta-analyses when they conflict with primary and original research and reporting. You can see where those criteria intersect with the politics of economics at Talk:United States over the past few months or Talk:Economic growth over the past year or so. The sheer number of supply side trickle down advocates around here is a huge bummer, and Jimbo could easily do something about it by taking a stand. EllenCT (talk) 18:40, 21 August 2015 (UTC)


 * You aren't asking Jimbo to 'take a stand' - you are asking him to 'renounce' his views (or what you are representing as his views). AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:43, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what the practical difference is, but if taking a stand is easier, by all means yes. Either or both would all be far better than neither. Jimbo was a leading figure, if not the leading Objectivist on the Internet, shortly prior to Wikipedia. And I'm not even opposed to much of small-o objectivism; being able to derive precepts from axioms is important to insure that one is free from contradiction; purpose and self-esteem are essential for higher primates; and I even approve of taking profits from market arbitrage, as long as it's not on the backs of people's retirement savings and pensions. But the amount of misogyny, sociopathy, trickle down, and related destructive and incivil behaviors in the big-O Objectivist community is astonishing. EllenCT (talk) 21:53, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I honestly don't see how Jimbo taking a stand re: Ayn Rand would change anything for women (and gender non-normative) editors on Wikipedia... I agree with your opinion on the topic, but don't see how that will change Wikipedia. To make an analogy, Jimbo is not the Fed and we are not investors. We don't look to him to signs of his opinion on something so broad.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) Please &#123;&#123;re&#125;&#125; 21:59, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Do you know why Jimbo has so often had to preface his opinions with, "I don't want people to take this as a policy pronouncement...."? The social dynamics here have always included Jimbo easily setting the tone that often sways hundreds. EllenCT (talk) 01:04, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

If there is one thing I have learned on Wikipedia is that it is prudent to simply ignore people who demand you take a particular stand on an issue. Take stands when and where you feel like. <b style="color:Blue">Chillum</b> 22:03, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
 * It's not a demand. It's a considered, sincere recommendation. I would not be wasting my time on anything so foolish as making demands. EllenCT (talk) 01:04, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

So now political polarization and zealotry is coming to a point where people with the opposite views don't fit in the same community? I guess there are elections coming in the Big World. As for economics, there are different schools with different views and as such we have different political ideologies. That is, unless you are a proponent of some kind of EU technocracy or scientific socialism. Many economics-related topics do not have a single scientific truth, instead we have to try to balance presentation of different views with WP:DUE weight and notability. And EllenCT, I suggest you strike your request through, you can honestly achieve more in Wikipedia if you don't make yourself look like a single-purpose fool. --Pudeo' 00:35, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Homeopaths fit into the community as long as their edits comport with the peer reviewed secondary sources and aren't so disruptive as to make things inordinately difficult for non-homeopaths. EllenCT (talk) 01:04, 22 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Actually, asking Wikipedians to sign loyalty oaths isn't a new thing. Remember a few years ago when RfA candidates were asked to swear that they had never participated in Wikipedia Review or other BADSITES?  If the WP community wants to mandate that all editors renounce Ayn Rand and supply-side economics before they're allowed to assume a leadership position in the project, I say we should run with it.  In addition, we should make a list establishing all of our accepted opinions and political stances for potential leaders in this project, including the house POV on alternative medicine, Intelligent Design, race and intelligence, environmental science controversies, cold fusion, and Pokémon. Cla68 (talk) 00:49, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm not asking for a loyalty oath either. Admitting that Art Okun screwed up and a lot of people have paid a terrible price in the nearly half century since is nothing like signing a loyalty oath. Admitting a mistake is an ordinary and most honorable action. Have you seen WP:FRINGE? EllenCT (talk) 01:04, 22 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Jimbo can decide for himself whether he thinks Art Okun screwed up or not. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:12, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
 * It's not a matter of opinion anymore. The mathematical facts are entirely conclusive, say not just the peer reviewed literature reviews of the late 1990s, but all of the conclusive reviews since, including the OECD's most recent, comprehensive, and robust work. EllenCT (talk) 01:18, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
 * You should add it to his bio. It's missing.  As for someone that's lived through the misery index - yes, it's absolutely real.  Greece is learning it.  --DHeyward (talk) 06:29, 23 August 2015 (UTC)


 * you forgot capital punishment, abortion, reagonomics, polygamy and repressed memory syndrome. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:09, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

No idea really how this suggestion would improve the situation as far as recruiting or retaining female editors, but the only time demand side economics (Keynesian) worked was when the U.S. ramped up spending in a massive way to fight WW2. The worst part about socialism is you eventually run out of other people's money. The best economists aren't busy teaching economics...they're busy working as product planners. Stimulus in even the hundreds of billions in the U.S. economy isn't enough to rocket an economy as large as the U.S. or even one say the size of Russia in today's percentages. Hence we now have the highest percentages of food stamp and public assistance as well as the largest debt as a portion of GDP and nearly zero net job growth.--MONGO 07:07, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
 * "Product planners"? I thought you would have been opposed to economic planning. In any case, the peer reviewed secondary sources agree that the general effect of stimulus spending is inconclusive, especially compared to transfer payments to the poor. Because they don't disagree that income equality is preferable to income inequality. Think about it this way: with stimulus spending, only the government expresses the initial preferences, and then only government contractors. With transfer payments to the poor, the middle class preferences are amplified. EllenCT (talk) 14:04, 23 August 2015 (UTC)


 * As I don't edit in the area of economics, I don't see that it would be wise or helpful for me to offer advice. And I very much don't see what Ayn Rand has to do with anything, but if it's helpful, I hereby condemn anything misogynist that she said or that anyone influenced by her has said.  I've never seen anyone on Wikipedia justifying misogynist actions or opinions based on the views of Ayn Rand, so I don't really see how this is in any way important.  Also, there is absolutely no genuine sense in which I was ever anything like "the leading Objectivist on the Internet" at any point in my life, ever.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 00:00, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you, Jimbo! That means a lot to me and I predict it means as much to the people who need to know it. EllenCT (talk) 13:55, 23 August 2015 (UTC)


 * It's pretty weird that anybody would think you were, IMO. Objectivism seems to me to be characterised by abstraction from understanding of human motives and the complexities they evoke, like any other ideology. That does not seem to me to be consistent with what you say and do. Guy (Help!) 00:45, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
 * The very, very first iteration of Wikipedia had 1.75 shiploads of Ayn Rand fan cruft added by, I think it was. It was like the percentage presence of Pokemon + garage bands + train stations on today's WP. JW claimed to come from the land of Rand, at least at some casual level, and that's where the misconception or meme started. I probably would have arrived at WP a year and a half or two years earlier because of this bad rap: "Awww, Wikipedia is just a Libertarian propaganda effort — the guy who runs it is a huge Libertarian," etc. etc. so I steered away. When I finally arrived late in 2008 I found that this wasn't a fair depiction of WP at all, but that was definitely the opinion in the wind back in 2005, 2006 in my neck of the political woods... The reality of WP is much closer to anarcho-syndicalism than it is to libertarianism, truth be told. Carrite (talk) 01:01, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
 * See THIS recreation of the very early Wiki... Spool down to AtlasShrugged... Carrite (talk) 01:09, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
 * If nothing else the lyrics for Anthem came out of her work, and it sounds even better on full-metal mastered vinyl. The Blade of the Northern Lights ( 話して下さい ) 05:24, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Reading original request, I think EllenCT is vastly overestimating Jimbo's influence on wikipedia editor interactions.--Staberinde (talk) 16:05, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

(Reddit could use more views too). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.170.50.226 (talk) 21:32, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Once again: harassment
After a handful of cases about sexual harassment, ARBCOM is considering a case regarding racial harassment now. After Lightbreather's case the committee encouraged editors to address the issues and Wikipedia_talk:Harassment shows how much good came of that. How many good editors will be driven off this project because of the obstructionism by those squawking that "all harassment is equal"?  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) Please &#123;&#123;re&#125;&#125; 18:40, 18 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Once again, good editors are rarely driven out of this project by sexual or racial harassment. It's largely all in your head. People typically leave wikipedia because of a hostile community and conflict over articles. Sex or race rarely comes into it on wikipedia in a place where few of us really know if the other person is black or white or a woman or a man. ♦ Dr. Blofeld  19:09, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't think we actually know why "good editors" leave, so I wish people would stop generalizing about it. I personally know at least one African-American individual who chose not to even start editing Wikipedia after taking a look at the not-so-thinly-veiled racism that was rampant at Talk:Shooting of Trayvon Martin. I'm not talking about commentary from drive-by trolls; I'm talking about the discussion from established Wikipedians. At the same time, I know plenty of people of all genders and races who stopped editing Wikipedia for reasons that had nothing to do with those characteristics, and had more to do with the issues that Dr. Blofeld mentions. I won't pretend to have a generalizable answer as to why good editors leave, but let's not pretend that you have one either. MastCell Talk 20:05, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi MastCell, yes I used to look into the Martin article from time to time and was ever so happy to see that you seemed to have it on your watch list, at least for a time. I hope that if you get a chance, tell your African-American friend that it is not typical of WP's treatment of African-Americans.  I watch over a lot of articles related to African-Americans, including most of the string of police shooting that we have seen of late, and I find them to be just the opposite of what was seen at the Martin article.  Do you want to take a guess at what I have found to be the article that is most frequently called inaccurate by racists?  Gandydancer (talk) 23:29, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Yeah everybody has their reasons, I'm just speaking of all the people I know who've left and the reasons for it and generally it's because of pressure from others over an article/personal attacks, or a trigger happy admin. I guess bullying and psychological warfare at times is partly one of the reasons, but I've really not seen somebody being racially or sexually abused on here. We're very serious about things like that and tend to block people over even the slightest suggestive remarks anyway.♦ Dr. Blofeld  21:27, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Most of the departed good contributors where I know the reason they either:
 * were pushed, unfairly, unreasonably or unkindly, or
 * moved on naturally.
 * A significant number of the remainder either found the combative attitude of the hierarchy unpleasant to be around, or flounced over a content dispute. Not a few have died.
 * All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 00:39, 21 August 2015 (UTC).
 * All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 00:39, 21 August 2015 (UTC).


 * "Considering a case regarding racial harassment" is misleading, to say the least. Two editors on opposing sides in Israel/Palestine lost their temper and started taking cracks at each other which escalated into name-calling, one of them used the phrase "sonny boy" (which is undoubtedly belittling but has no racial connotations at all anywhere other than some parts of the US), the other party took it as a racial insult and replied with another on "how do you like it?" grounds. The issues Arbcom are considering there relate to under what circumstances, if any, it's unreasonable to expect editors to keep their cool in the face of perceived insults, and some technical matters on when and if it's acceptable for an admin to use deletion powers to delete their own comments, and under what circumstances automatic desysopping prior to giving the admin in question a chance to reply is appropriate. They're all genuine, legitimate concerns but to dress it us as a case of "Wikipedia racism" is highly misleading. &#8209; iridescent 19:25, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
 * ... but par for the course for a very small subset of contributors who are intent on turning this place into something rather different from an encyclopaedia. - Sitush (talk) 21:37, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
 * , it's not just "some parts of the US"--it's the US, as a whole, where "boy" is just about the worst thing you can say to an adult black man. I have no doubt that the editor used it purposely to get the highest possible rise out of his opponent (who identifies, as anyone who looks at his user page knows, as a black American adult man) and he clearly succeeded. No, this was not a small matter. Sorry to disagree with you, but this was a racist sneer, of the worst kind. After twenty years in Alabama, I think I know a couple of things about it. Drmies (talk) 02:07, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
 * @Drmies, just for the record, "sonny boy" as originally coined 50 years, 75 years, 100? ago, had ZERO racial connotations, period. I do agree that the use of "boy" directed at an Africam-American adult is one of the worst things, after the n word, that can be said and does have a long history.That said, I have NO idea how it was used in this case, and if it was meant as an attack is unacceptable. Thank you, --Malerooster (talk) 16:07, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Drmies got here first, but I'll reinforce this: the word "boy" to an American black man distills centuries of every kind of abuse, subjugation, disrespect and contempt down to a single three-letter word. It's powerful and hurtful. Perhaps it takes some time living in the deep South to understand (seven years in Georgia for me), but it's absolutely the most disrespectful single thing you can say to a black man.  Acroterion   (talk)   02:26, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

The discussion wasn't a total loss. The harassment policy now states "Harassment against an editor on the basis of a real or alleged race, gender, religion, age, disability, sexual orientation, or gender identity is not allowed." This isn't as much as I would have liked, but it is a silver lining. CorporateM (Talk) 22:02, 18 August 2015 (UTC)


 * I think "alleged" is a very unfortunate choice of words. Why on earth use “alleged” rather than “supposed”, “conjectural”, “imagined”, “assumed” or something else? An allegation always involves something undesirable. MarkBernstein (talk) 22:20, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
 * ✅ Good point. I put "real or assumed" Feel free to copyedit further. CorporateM (Talk) 22:44, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Maybe, and this is just a maybe, adding something to the effect of social, philosophical and/or political might be reasonable. I'm thinking of, for instance, possible discrimination against people on the basis of being, for instance, acknowledged users of alcohol or maybe marijuana, or maybe supporters of fetal stem cell research or any number of other things. So far as I can see, such aren't necessarily covered in the existing phrasing, and, in at least some areas among some editors, such positions could be just as much a cause for abuse. Having said that, I have no clue how to change the phrasing in a reasonable way. John Carter (talk) 23:19, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
 * My view is that, since genetic studies have basically proven that you cannot tell someones race by their genes, that there really is no such thing as race, only differing surface characteristics. What has been tradionally label as Race then becomes a social grouping or construct. I view it as not unlike the difference between a white rose and a red rose. I wonder what would happen if we start discussions about race by always stating that premise at the beginning.  Labels like African American have always struck me as inadvertently elevating the stigma of racism to the front of any discussion, especially in light of the genetic findings that a majority of people labeled as African American average less than of 78% (or 73% by some sources)  African descent.  There is a good essay about this by Henry Louis Gates, Jr., who himself is a member of the Sons of the American Revolution.  Nyth  63  23:59, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I like 's point. Something broad like "personal characteristics or beliefs" might do the trick. CorporateM (Talk) 01:46, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

The relevant part of WP:Harass now reads:

"Harassment of an editor on the basis of race, sex, gender, sexual orientation, religion, age or disability is not allowed."

The most important part of that is that it certainly reflected the consensus of the discussion there and nobody has contested the basic idea. In other words - it is policy now. It is not what everybody in the discussion wanted in a sexual harassment policy. I'd say the majority wanted something stronger. But please do not give up hope. A little tenacity goes a long way. Smallbones( smalltalk ) 01:24, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I hope this does not imply that harassment for others reasons like funny colour dyed hair or ugly tattoos is still allowed. Since it is not possible to make a comprehensive list, would it not be better to say Harassment of an editor for any reason is not allowed. as implied in the subsequent paragraph on that policy page?  Nyth  63  01:34, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Actually, the next paraggraph says IMHO exactly what you want, "The prohibition against harassment applies equally to all Wikipedians." The difference made by the addition is that people wanted to emphasize that identity-based harassment was included. Smallbones( smalltalk ) 02:01, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I said that. see the subsequent paragraph on that policy page part of my comment. This is rather like in Wisconsin that passed a law against texting while driving when there was already a law against any type of distracted driving (presumably like eating, reading, putting on makeup, or shaving?) that would have covered it.  Nyth 63  10:53, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes and all lives matter blah blah blah. Don't you have something better to do with your time? --JBL (talk) 20:40, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Better than nothing. Glad something came of it (this is too).  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) Please &#123;&#123;re&#125;&#125; 01:38, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Based on my own experiences, including recently, I've found that sources written by women authors/journalists are more likely to get reverted than ones written by men. Cla68 (talk) 01:40, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
 * A lot of the bias is in the sources too. The press (largely men) tend to focus more on a female executive/politician/etc.'s appearances and fashion choices than they do for men. Although I am usually a stickler for following sources to the letter, I think can agree this is not encyclopedic information. CorporateM (Talk) 01:44, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Imagine the fashion review of, say the 1928 British cabinet, "The Prime Minister wore a dark three piece suit with a white shirt, wingtip-collar and dark tie, as at the previous cabinet meeting. The Lord Chancellor wore a dark three piece suit with a white shirt, wingtip-collar and dark tie, as at the previous cabinet meeting.  So did the rest of the cabinet."
 * However what women of note wear is typically important to the fashion world and other women. Examples exist of items selling out shortly after a well-known person is seen wearing them - including for men, such as Marc Jacobs' button down dress by Comme des Garçons - this is known as the Kate Middleton effect.
 * It is quite possible to trivialise what people wear (pace Michael Foot), eat, drive, read and so forth, but this is to look at the world through one particular lens.
 * All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 01:10, 21 August 2015 (UTC).

Please note that I don't believe the issues of sexual discrimination and harassment is now complete. I'd think that the best place for a "no sexual discrimination policy" that applies to users (not just to WMF employees) is at WP:Non discrimination policy, although the main form of sexual discrimination possible on Wikipedia is likely harassment. I would also suggest that somebody who has actually experienced sexual harassment, first write a proposed addition to the harassment policy on how to identify sexual harassment, then do an RfC on it. We did it backwards last time, first everybody !voted for a change and then the wording was argued about. Smallbones( smalltalk ) 02:16, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
 * The fact that there is no way to confidentially report sexual harassment says a lot about the values of this organization. Currently, editors are urged to report to a largely anonymous group at Arbcom, which is all male except for one person, does not take phone calls, has had leaked e-mails in the past, and is not necessarily sympathetic to people who prefer a non-hostile working environment. Creating a confidential reporting channel for sexual harassment, which includes the option of speaking on the telephone with someone of your own gender, and where the person responding has signed a binding non-disclosure agreement with regards to confidential and personal information, would be a step forward. --Djembayz (talk) 14:25, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
 * User:Djembayz to prove the point of others here there is at least one other woman on Arbcom other then Gorilla Warfare, unless mean are now being named Amanda, Delta Quad is also a female. That's the fallacy in your arguments, anonymous is exactly that anonymous sometimes. Gender doesn't matter if the ideas are good. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 03:27, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

What does it take to get this implemented?
Ok, you want to get a person who will answer sexual harassment complaints. What will it take to get there?
 * First you've got to think of the actual $ cost - In San Francisco, one person with backup for sick days and vacations, health insurance, office space, etc. might run up to $250,000 per year. This is clearly possible for the WMF. I don't see any way EN Wikipedia could do it.
 * Why would the WMF get involved? Well they dedicated themselves to a goal of 25% women editors a couple of years ago. Last year Jimbo said that they had totally failed to reach their goals on this. Wikipedia does have a reputation as a male dominated website, but is seen as flailing about trying to do something about it.  I think they are ready to do something, even if the cost would be a couple of million.  But what they need is a plan and a reason to move forward *now*
 * So what does it take to get the WMF off its butts? Perhaps a petition with 100 signers? I'll ask to weigh in on this.  Jimbo, what would it take to get a proposal like this in front of the WMF board with a good chance of passing?

If it is just 100 signers on a petition, that should be easy, piece of cake, on your desk on Tuesday morning. I think what you really need is just a couple hundred angry women saying "I'm mad as hell and I'm not going to take it anymore." Hasn't ArbCom and a few others already provided you with this on a silver platter? Time to get to work, plan it, organize it, and just get it done.

I hope this helps.

Smallbones( smalltalk ) 03:27, 21 August 2015 (UTC)


 * On the contrary, what Arbcom tends to do with women who are demonstrably "as mad as hell and not going to take it anymore", is to siteban them. So far, this has been fairly effective in preventing any disruption to the status quo. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 09:52, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Alternatively, we could just treat these how they should be treated - neutrally, quickly and without judgement on the victim. I don't think the WMF is going to solve the issue by banning people - We've seen how that's gone in the past, and I don't think the communities trust is high enough for this to happen. It's a cycle - people lose trust in the WMF, WMF doesn't want to take actions in case they get called out, Community loses more faith, and so on... Mdann52 (talk) 10:18, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

I don't think this is aimed at ArbCom so much as at the WMF. This would involve a full-time professional and I don't see how that could be run out of ArbCom.


 * It would be nice if sexual harassment cases could be dealt with "neutrally, quickly and without judgement on the victim," but I think the current 80%+ male editorship and institutional arrangements prevent this. Wikipedia's rules change slowly and changes occasionally need to be jump started.
 * Banning editors should of course be a last resort. I'm not familiar with the WMF banning folks except in the Russavia case. A dozen or so people started screaming after that, but I don't see it as affecting people's trust in the WMF.  A couple hundred people screaming - sure that might affect the WMF - but I don't think we need to do that. People can be mad as hell and still try to act like ladies and gentlemen.

It is quite important that women propose any changes like this. In the sexual harassment discussion that was partially derailed, it was clear that men (myself included) were making the proposed wording for the policy change. Any women involved were shouldered aside. It is not entirely clear to me what is proposing above, but that can be worked out, and the general outline is clear.

As long as I'm pinging people, I'll ask, , and : What do you think it would take to get a proposal like this in front of the WMF Board with a reasonable chance of passing? Smallbones( smalltalk ) 14:52, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
 * There have been 9 global bans by the WMF . A number I assume have been carried out due to harassment. They have been done without disclosure why (ie in private).
 * User:Smallbones is what you're proposing an expansion of this? Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 16:48, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, lets look at the VE and MW issue for when the WMF tries and acts in what they see as in the best interests of the site. The whole issue with WMF bans is the community are not informed for the reason for these, so there is no transparency and no real reason to find out the reason for the ban - and this is where the issue is likely to come from. The Russivia case is one example of this happening - and if this is expanded, I can see a few more editors being banned through this process, which would likely divide the community even more. Personally, I think we need to treat all editors equally under policy - not just say "They've done some good work, unblock" as I've seen in a case in the past few days (mentioning no names, of course). Also, I think we need to keep the block in place even if the user apologies - the issue with the internet is that we can never tell if someone is truely sorry or are just saying something to get out of the "naughty box". Just my 2c of course, feel free to object if you want. Mdann52 (talk) 17:19, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't see anything in your response that I object to. You might be a bit stricter than I am, but when it comes to systematic harassment, I'm pretty strict.
 * - I'm really not proposing any new policy or making a proposal to the Board. I'm telling  and presumably many other women that they can make their own proposal and should, almost certainly, be able to get it before the board.  I'm generally sympathetic to what I see proposed so far (a person at the WMF who will answer sexual harassment complaints), but it looks incomplete to me. I assume since this could involve harassment and intimidation that WMF banning could become involved, but view that as a last resort.
 * My only real proposal is that women should not feel disempowered here. I find it difficult to imagine that the WMF Board would not hear them out. If it takes 200 signatures on a petition - I think that could be done.  I doubt the the Board would require it, but if they need to have a motion approved by NOW and countersigned by a Nobel Peace Prize winner, I think that they could do that. So this is 2-pronged a) to women, get the proposal ready and figure out how to jump through any hoops put in front of you; and b) to Board members, please explain what hoops have to be jumped through.  Smallbones( smalltalk ) 18:14, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
 * As an individual board member I am happy to look at proposals and bring them forwards if supported by a sizable part of the community.
 * We however need to keep in mind what is and is not within the WMFs area of influence. The foundation only rarely gets involved in editor issues and it appears many within the community want it keep this way.
 * Regarding following up harassment that take place outside of Wikipedia, I agree that it is difficult for the community due to our interpretation of the WP:OUTING policy. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 19:19, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Also, there is a working group trying to address harassment and safe space policies for Wikipedia, we met at WIkimania and are making progress. Pundit | utter  15:10, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks to Doc James and for the responses.  I didn't know about this working group.  Is that a working group of editors or board members?  Is there anything you can tell us about the type of progress being made?  Thanks again (and I do realize that works-in-progress can be difficult to reveal).  Smallbones( smalltalk ) 03:46, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
 * It is run by volunteers, and supported by community advocacy team (Patrick being the designated person). I believe it is a loosely organized group stemming from several IdeaLab initiatives. Pundit | utter  14:42, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, Community Advocacy is helping with coordination with the working group. If you'd like more info, or are interested in being involved, send me an email (pearley@undefinedwikimedia.org). I'm travelling currently, so may not be able to reply until mid-week.  Best, Patrick Earley (WMF) (talk) 15:11, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

From the outside, it appears (a) that the community says it wants a policy against harassment, (b) that the discussion of actually having a policy is moribund, (c) that there is a shadowy working group making "good progress" toward something. but we don't know who or toward what, or whether this resembles the "top men" who are working on the Ark Of The Covenant in Indiana Jones, and (d) actually employing someone to do something about offsite harassment of wikipedians requires Foundation resources, but the Foundation is apparently unwilling to make this a priority until the community requires it -- and the community is unable to do so. So, what does it take to get this, or anything, implemented? MarkBernstein (talk) 15:06, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Foundation has left even child protection issues on the shoulders of Arbcom. Expecting them to get hands dirty with harrasment issues is in my opinion wildly optimistic.--Staberinde (talk) 15:52, 24 August 2015 (UTC)


 * We can end this harassment problem tomorrow if we learn to ignore it. Editorial decisions are ultimately always taken on the basis of good arguments, so if one editor is frustrated about not getting his/her way, and starts to insult people, then simply ignoring these insults is the best long term strategy. In extreme cases one may consider a block, but the general problem is quite similar to that of the 3 year old who didn't get another candy and starts to cry loud in public. The less attention you give to this, the quicker the crying will stop. It is just a primitive attention drawing method, while what happens here on Wikipedia is a more sophisticated variant on that. The whole point of that is to stand on someone's toes, by resisting any such attack, the attacker will always lose. Count Iblis (talk) 22:57, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Ignore harassment and it will go away. Is that really what you are saying? I'm guessing that you are not often harassed around here.  Smallbones( smalltalk ) 13:23, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
 * The Count could argue that that supports his claim. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 14:35, 25 August 2015 (UTC).


 * It is easy for some of us to ignore harassment. Some of us have thick skins. Some of us don’t need to worry about what their bosses will think, or how a future employer will react, when lies are spread about us across Google in order to secure an advantage on some Wikipedia page. Some of us don’t need to worry what lies might be sent to our children, or to their schoolfriend, or how those lies might affect our children’s teachers. Some of us don’t need to worry about how our aged mothers will react to seeing us photoshopped into pornographic pictures. Some of us don’t have dogs who happen to be dying today, and so our Wikipedia rivals can’t drive us away by posting pictures of dead dogs. Some of us don’t have deceased siblings, and so our Wikipedia rivals can’t dismay us by posting pictures of our late siblings. And some of us, having taken counsel of the stoics, are prepared to suffer whatever ill our enemies might fling at us in order to serve Wikipedia and support its policies.
 * Then again…    All the best:^nbsp;indeed.  MarkBernstein (talk) 14:54, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
 * All the best: --15:43, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Wikilawyering bot operator
Every once and awhile a WP:CfD result goes south. When such result starts popping up on my watchlist I yank some alarmbells, time usually being crucial for bot-implemented CfD results. It takes no more than a dedicated admin (and usually a considerable investment of time) to put things straight again, e.g. User talk:Ricky81682/Archive 9.

Now I'm confronted with CfD results going against Categorization of people, and an endless wikilawyering of the bot operator of the bot that implemented the CfD results. All editors commenting on the content of the matter, including the initiator of both CfD's in question and the closing admin of one of them, seem to agree that with retrospect the CfD results were incompatible with the Categorization of people guideline, and that that guidance outdoes the CfD result. However, going forward on the matter is impeded by a sheer endless summation of procedural matters of questionable applicability. No avail linking to WP:NOTBUREAUCRACY in reply to these objections.

Maybe my initial yanking was too forceful, so I antagonized people. If that is so, I'm truly sorry. The thing is, however, it seems incredibly difficult to get to the core: what is in Wikipedia's best interest – in the case an editor is up against a "fait accompli" of hundreds of bot edits. At a loss how to proceed. First, I didn't cause the problem of a massive bot-operated categorization incompatible with the Categorization of people guideline. Second, what options are left? Take this to ArbCom?

Is there no possibility to make editors come to their senses? This is long past indicating "guilt", just trying to get to a point where the norm is set by let's make Wikipedia's best interests win even if this ruffles some bot feathers. --Francis Schonken (talk) 10:42, 21 August 2015 (UTC)


 * We basically lost spoiler warnings because of a person with a non-bot that nevertheless made 20000 edits with computer assistance. People do what works.  Ken Arromdee (talk) 04:16, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
 * That summary is not what can be found at Spoiler. --Francis Schonken (talk) 06:26, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Do you want me to edit that page? It's obviously written by someone who approved of the process and either doesn't know or doesn't want to publicize questionable actions.  It also contains other mischaracterizations; for instance, policies contained a specific mention of spoiler warnings, so claiming that people thought "polices should not apply" to them is revisionist history.  (And anyway, claiming that the other side "thinks policies don't apply" is almost always wrong.  What actually happened is that people disagreed about policies, but you decided to characterize "disagrees whether policies are implicated" as "thinks policies don't apply".  It's like claiming that anyone who votes for a Democrat "supports destroying  our country's economy".  No, they disagree on whether something is destroying our country's economy at all.)


 * (Although that article does hint at what happened by pointing out that there was no consensus but they managed to change it anyway. Of course, normally on Wikipedia when there is no consensus to make changes, we don't make changes.  It got changed in the absence of consensus because of non-bots making 20000 changes and nobody having the patience to reverse them.) Ken Arromdee (talk) 21:50, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, I'm obviously not interested in that discussion, sorry about that. Not sure why you brought it up in this thread. I don't see a link or even a remote relevance to the issue I raised. --Francis Schonken (talk) 03:15, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
 * When the suggestion is to maybe reconsider the guidance at Categorization of people I see, thus far, no reason to do so. Besides, one of the reasons I came to this talk page is that the last thing I can remember Jimbo saying about that guidance was in support of WP:COP, precisely the guidance overridden by the bot operation following a CfD ("It occurs to me that consensus is most likely reachable by reference to WP:COP ... I think what might persuade warring parties to put down their keyboards is a close look at WP:COP", see User talk:Jimbo Wales/Archive 164 – yes the content of that discussion was different no need to remind me of that – also no need to remind me of WP:Argumentum ad Jimbonem, I wrote half of that essay: I only came here to "do what [sometimes!] works" having considered a lot of other options). --Francis Schonken (talk) 06:26, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Meanwhile in Russia
Russia threatens to ban Wikipedia --95.32.213.75 (talk) 14:00, 21 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Russia have already done the worst possible thing with the internet. --Rubbish computer 17:48, 21 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Some affected websites are listed at Internet censorship in Russia.
 * —Wavelength (talk) 20:57, 22 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Amusingly, it appears that disambiguating charas throws a monkey wrench in their bureaucratic procedure. (I assume therefore they mean Чарас (наркотическое вещество), which appears to have been disambiguated)  Nonetheless, they can try again.  This reference makes reference to revisions having been made by administrators in a previous Wikipedia article about cannabis  - without understanding the language I am not sure whether that can be counted as anything particularly abject, since all articles are constantly being revised.  However, this ref's authors don't appear to understand that HTTPS is meant to prevent spying on which page is being viewed - if some Russian ISPs are able to block a specific page, I think that must mean they are blocking real HTTPS?


 * However, this is unlikely to be the end of the matter because Russia just pulled the same thing with Reddit and that company caved in, blocking the page on their end to Russian addresses.  Such a thing might seem like the lesser of two evils, but I feel like we're going to get nuked if we don't show we're willing to go to Defcon 1 now and then.  After all, if Wikipedia truly get censored in Russia, anyone is free to make a special censored fork just for them, hopefully riddled with enough adware to keep the site profitable and the Russians' lives interesting. Wnt (talk) 13:07, 23 August 2015 (UTC)


 * There is an article about DEFCON.—Wavelength (talk) 14:45, 23 August 2015 (UTC)


 * The values of the Russian Orthodox Church have some influence over politics in Russia.
 * Russian Orthodox Church lends weight to Putin patriotism—BBC News (August 21, 2015)
 * —Wavelength (talk) 14:39, 23 August 2015 (UTC)


 * It seems like the Russian government has more far more influence on religion than the other way around. After all, it's a country where the Catholic Church remains essentially illegal.  Certainly there is no Biblical prohibition on cannabis (see Rastafari for some relevant commentary, but the absence of anti-cannabis laws until the most recent century should also be a clue). Wnt (talk) 15:11, 23 August 2015 (UTC)


 * This article indicates that "financing of ventures involving gambling, prostitution or drugs" is not "in line with the church's beliefs".
 * Russian Orthodox Church tries to make hay—Deutsche Welle (August 16, 2015)
 * —Wavelength (talk) 19:23, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Hmm, I always suspected Kirill was untrustworthy. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 17:04, 24 August 2015 (UTC).


 * The Bible counsel at 2 Corinthians 7:1 applies to the effects of cannabis.
 * —Wavelength (talk) 22:51, 23 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Theological debates are probably inappropriate here, but I can't resist a reference to Proverbs 31. Wnt (talk) 12:19, 24 August 2015 (UTC)


 * In the case of alcoholic beverages, the Bible distinguishes between moderation and overindulgence. (Proverbs 23:29–35)  Self-restraint is advisable for anyone imbibing Russian vodka or California wine.
 * —Wavelength (talk) 19:11, 24 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Here is additional information about the Russian Orthodox Church.
 * The new believers | Books | The Guardian (January 22, 2000)
 * Mandate of Heaven: Russian Orthodoxy and the Politics of National Identity—Center for Strategic and International Studies (May 19, 2015)
 * —Wavelength (talk) 19:11, 24 August 2015 (UTC)


 * I think Proverbs 23 is warning us more about Windows 10 than cannabis, though it is quite a broad and metaphorical message. Meanwhile, Patriarch Drozdov is pretty widely (outside Russia, that is) described as a 'KGB agent'  Our article is not quite so forward; it defends him (so to speak) by saying that "Not a single candidate for the office of bishop or any other high-ranking office, much less a member of Holy Synod, went through without confirmation by the Central Committee of the CPSU and the KGB."  Hmmm.  Anyway, there can be little doubt that his holiness and Putin's authority grow from the barrel of the same gun. Wnt (talk) 22:24, 24 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Do not speak so about Kirill and Putin. And the Mafia State by Guardian looks like simple lie. They make money already almost 10 years (reason to write stupidity). Jan Warner 12 (talk) 23:24, 24 August 2015 (UTC)


 * In all of my posts to this discussion, my intention was to provide information in a respectful manner, without advocating a political position. However, in a discussion of this sort, it is too easy to be misunderstood, even if I am extremely careful about every detail in my comments.  Therefore, it probably would have been better if I had refrained from participating in this discussion.
 * —Wavelength (talk) 01:53, 25 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Well, by the English-language reports I'm reading it sounds like Monday's announcement actually did lead to some people being blocked from the site; however, the censors reversed themselves quickly.  Wikipedia is simply too useful to ban, it would appear.  Russia has aspirations to create their own alternative controlled by the Boris Yeltsin presidential library, but apparently it's not that easy to set up a top-down version of Wikipedia that never includes information that somebody might object to. :)  According to one person interviewed , "we could have been blocked every day since 2012", because apparently there are other pages that the censors have objected to which have essentially remained.  (Whenever a page gets this kind of media attention, it receives a huge wave of edits, but I don't see any report that all information about drug use has been effaced) Wnt (talk) 10:35, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Harassment discussion

 * Why is a continued harassment discussion being carried on here? I will make some relevant comments and note this on the Harassment talk page.
 * There is consensus that improvements need to be done. There is a side wanting some (or any) new policy and a side that feels the issue can be resolved with current relevant policy. I am in the second camp, have shown I am trying to help effect change, but think existing policy along with a particular guideline, or information page (if needed or wanted) will suffice, and keep concerns of instruction creep from continually "creeping". I have particular concerns over the comment ...because of the obstructionism by those squawking that "all harassment is equal..". I surely missed any comments that support this wording, and there was no "particular" comment used as support. All harassment is certainly not equal but an attack is an attack, and harassment is still harassment. Any policy covering harassment can surely cover differing forms on the same page and be expounded on with guidelines, information pages, and even community supported essays. Harassment (already policy) is continuing attacks (already policy), and a breach of civility (already policy) and we need to differentiate between more severe (egregious) forms of "attacks", and provide a way to deal with them. I feel (as do others) that "more policies", is not a solution. All harassment is not equal, however if one threatens to slap another, that is assault --BUT if one threatens to cut someone with a knife that is a far more serious (egregious) "aggravated assault" but still assault. The same with harassment. A more severe or egregious form of harassment can be covered on the same page and will suffice to cover all others (bullying etc...) without redundancy. In fact, if one were to read WP:No personal attacks again it could be noted the wording "Repeated or egregious personal attacks may lead to sanctions including blocks.". If someone can convince me that repeated attacks (obviously verbal) would not be harassment on a second occurrence, I will change my entire way of thinking. "IF" this is true then we need a way to deal with what we have and not create yet another policy to repeat "If you do this particular serious harassment we will "seriously" consider taking this to another level and "may", if we can find an admin willing to make such a difficult decision without fear of reprisals because of a lack of admin protection, block or ban you". If an attack is so severe as to be egregious, that could certainly be harmful to the person on the receiving end, then why in the world would we want to wait for a repeat, then have the person go through a "VERY" lengthy process, more harm, take it to another level (ArbCom or whatever) --then "maybe" we "might" do something, that could be a block or a ban, that still can be appealed. There is no heresay on Wikipedia as it is "all" in print. A rule of "If you want to edit here then be nice or else" would be good. Wait! We have that. OMG! I have a headache.
 * This is why I advocate a "Core conduct policies" information page along the lines of the WP:Core content policies page, to tie all these related policies together.
 * It seems to me the bouncing of discussions, between here, as well as the WP:Sexual harassment, and the Identity-based harassment talk pages is not a solution.
 * Anyway, this is Jimbo Wales talk page and I must have missed him being in on the discussion. I assume he is a very busy man, and I know he has weighed in that something needs to be done, but even if he requested information along the lines of harassment, and it was brought here, at a point (for transparency), continued discussions should be brought to the appropriate place such as the harassment discussion page, or one of the harassment type splinter pages. Certainly advertise it ("As long as I'm pinging people") to all involved. I wasn't going to comment here at all but some comments needed addressing. Carrying on here seems rude at best. --thanks, Otr500 (talk) 08:41, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
 * There are a number of ways to make a policy more serious. The first people seem to latch onto is greater enforcement - knee-jerk blocks, global bans, seven flavors of sledgehammer.  The problem with this idea is that, as a site where anyone can log in under a new IP and name at any time, Wikipedia is already well past the point of diminishing returns where disciplinary action is concerned.  The way to handle this is at the other end.  We need to start by making our policies clearer and easier to understand, with the most logical boundaries we can set so that users cross them accidentally less often.  They should not needlessly affect any activity or opinion we can live with, because that creates backlash and dilutes enforcement capital.  Then we need to ensure that where trouble is observed - the specific kinds of harassment that are driving women off the site - there is a faster response and a more reliable response.  By doing that you can have more effective enforcement without imposing excessive penalties. Wnt (talk) 11:48, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
 * First, I'd like to thank for his contributions on this matter.  He is proposing, as far as I can tell, simple rules with swift and certain enforcement when it comes to harassment.  If we can do that, we should. I do think though that he should understand that Wikipedia has a crazy-quilt governance structure that has grown up organically and is resistant to swift and certain enforcement, especially the swift part.  I personally would be willing to settle for certain enforcement.  Some of the problems that we all have to deal with include:
 * No rule is every considered to be an overriding rule, except perhaps WP:Ignore all rules.
 * Admins and others feel free to argue over the all the fine points of every rule. There is no tradition of just reading the simplest possible meaning of a rule and enforcing it.  Arguments over rules can go on forever.
 * ArbCom is independent of the community other than the annual elections. They do not, IMHO, consider themselves bound by the simple reading of rules, but rather "split the baby" or place "a curse on both your houses" in very many cases. You cannot go to ArbCom for a simple, quick ruling on even a basic question and other dispute resolution methods, e.g. WP:ANI are just as difficult.
 * I'd love to see some changes made to this "system," but if you think the question of our harassment policy is difficult, major changes to the governance system will be 100 times as difficult. Perhaps the WMF Board can initiate a process of gradual governance reform, but even that will be quite difficult.
 * I'm sorry if I seem like a pessimist on this, but I do think there are some things that people who want change on a specific topic (e.g. on harassment) can do, e.g.
 * Challenge harassment, or lack of enforcement of the harassment policy, whenever they see it.
 * Go thru the process of rewriting policy and guidelines to address their concerns whenever necessary. Unfortunately this does result in some instruction creep and even some fairly complex policies - but what else can you do?
 * Use the various forums of general discussion on Wikipedia, including this page and the Signpost to let folks know about the problem.
 * Almost anything else you can think of - just keep plugging away.
 * I'm almost certain that this won't satisfy Otr500, but I don't know what else to tell him. If folks disagree with my reading of the situation, comments would be appreciated.  Smallbones( smalltalk ) 16:08, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
 * It seems to me that there are huge benefits to be had from education. I recall an editor coming to my page to pontificate about my "crappy" articles.  I tried to explain that that was not the best approach to take if he wanted me to improve, as he surely did.
 * When people take these approaches it is important to de-escalate. We do, and should continue to, encourage editors to discuss the edit, not the editors.  To try and focus on the content, and sources, rather than who reverted who, who took who to which noticeboard, which admin sided with which editor on which occasion, and so forth, the matters which dominate AN/I and even more extremely almost all of ArbCom.
 * To some extent we have a sort of "herd immunity" against the obvious issues - people can post the most egregious rubbish in article space or promotional text, copyvios or spam links, and they get (along with a revert) a polite note on their talk page, informing them that their edit "appears to be unconstructive", and that we block people who continue in this vein, but please edit constructively, and all will be well.
 * The more "meta" things get, and the more established the editors, the less, it appears, we (as a whole) are willing to maintain this calm, objective stance. Partly because we have vested interests, partly because we bear grudges, partly, perhaps, because things are not so clear cut.
 * These are issues we can work on, a more relaxed editor body, able to give and accept criticism in a positive manner (as most of us do most of the time).
 * Removing these understandable causes of friction will, in my opinion, firstly reduce the number of serious conflicts, reducing any accompanying harassment, and secondly help move the culture in a direction where harassment sticks out like a sore thumb, and is not acceptable.
 * The question is, how could such education be effectively delivered?
 * All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 17:30, 27 August 2015 (UTC).


 * you seem to be very optimistic compared to my pessimism. Actually I agree with you that education in the wiki-way is hugely important, and that de-escalation in most cases is better than escalation. But there are times when a) you truly know that you are right and have thought this thru in depth (e.g. it's not just a knee-jerk reaction to some poorly thought-out comment from an admin, and you've considered each opposing viewpoint from your "opponent's point of view".) and b) you know (to the degree that this can be known) that most Wikipedians agree with you. In these cases persistence and escalation (when necessary) are called for.  Change can be made on Wikipedia, and we'd be throwing away an incredible resource if we didn't try to make the needed changes. Coming up with a good place for education, with well written material, of course, would be wonderful.  Smallbones( smalltalk ) 23:08, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, escalation to another venue/process is sometimes appropriate. I meant de-escalation of the emotional intensity as much as anything. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 02:18, 28 August 2015 (UTC).


 * Actually, in Arbcom recently made the kind of decision I like to see - resolving the contradiction in the rules, while leaving all parties off the hook in recognition of the underlying policy flaw.  Hopefully the start of a better trend. Wnt (talk) 18:18, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
 * - I haven't read that particular case in detail, but I also hope it is the start of a better trend. Smallbones( smalltalk ) 23:11, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks smallbones, as far as being satisfied, I am happy that there is any progress. As far as one pessimist and one optimist, I am right of center as more optimist and a realist. "That" is a good thing as the whole picture can be observed. I just think we can make changes by discussion. I believe that hastily thrown together policy proposals is just not the way and I think the community feels the same. I am going to bow out at this location because it is like drinking coffee in someones kitchen while they are not home. Thanks again, Otr500 (talk) 00:18, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Invitation to WikiProject TAFI

 * Hello Jimbo: I know I sent you this before a while back, but since the project has been somewhat revised, now focusing upon only one article per week, a new invite is in order. Unless I'm mistaken, you don't appear to be a member of any WikiProjects. At the very least, if you were to join, it would help out to improve the project's street cred. North America1000 10:26, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 26 August 2015
<div class="hlist" style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;">
 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:59, 28 August 2015 (UTC)