User talk:SlimVirgin/March 2015

Books and Bytes - Issue 10
 The Wikipedia Library Books & Bytes

Issue 10, January-February 2015 by, ,

 Read the full newsletter MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:41, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
 * New donations - ProjectMUSE, Dynamed, Royal Pharmaceutical Society, and Women Writers Online
 * New TWL coordinator, conference news, and a new guide and template for archivists
 * TWL moves into the new Community Engagement department at the WMF, quarterly review

HLSmonkey02.jpg
Is there a way to prevent File:HLSmonkey02.jpg from being deleted? There's this request form, as well as OTRS pending. Otherwise, it looks like it will be deleted soon. Viriditas (talk) 00:36, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi, I try to avoid image-deletion discussions nowadays because they're such a waste of time, but I'll take a look. Sarah (SV) (talk) 03:58, 8 March 2015 (UTC) : Repinging because I mistyped. Sarah (SV) (talk) 03:59, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

TFA page views
I've just seen the FGM viewing figures for 7 February – perhaps you have, too? Anyway, at 49,662 it is the second-highest figure this year (beaten by Maggie Gyllenhall with 51,692) and the fifth highest in the past six months. I don't think that any TFA that I have written has got near FGM's figure. You should be pleased. Brianboulton (talk) 20:07, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks, . I was expecting a higher figure, but someone said that Friday and weekend views are lower, so that perhaps accounted for it. Still, it was a good number. Thanks for looking it up. Sarah (SV) (talk) 04:00, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

An interesting conversation...
Hi there Sarah, there's an interesting discussion going on at CaroleHenson's talk page regarding an elderly female photographer that perhaps demonstrates how difficult it may be to get women's bio articles into WP. I have run into similar situations when it came to women or people of color. Thoughts? Gandydancer (talk) 17:23, 8 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Sorry, it was really long, so I archived it off my talk page - it's here.-- CaroleHenson (talk) 17:50, 8 March 2015 (UTC)


 * I'm glad it worked out. It's a nice article. Sarah (SV) (talk) 19:44, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

User:GGTF/Writing about women
This page is coming along extremely well, and is almost entirely your individual work. Just wanted to mention that; otherwise it might seem as if I only write that I disagree with parts of it. That is merely because I really like the majority of it. Thank you. --GRuban (talk) 20:23, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
 * thanks, I appreciate your saying that. Sarah (SV) (talk) 17:38, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

A Wikivoyage request
As you may be aware Wikvoyage writes about a fantastical or fictional travel-topic or destination for April 1st.

This year's article got started a little earlier at voy:Wikivoyage:Joke_articles/Time_travel

I am writing here, because I would like someone other than myself to review it, and possibly advise if there are some historical sights which would be of interest to the female traveller.( I wanted to avoid clichés about historical romances for example.) I'd also appreciate feedback as to any issues related to female travellers in time which would need to be specifically noted, so that they can be integrated into the article text, rather than having a 'Ladies' section. If you wanted to,given the tone of the article, add portions as satire or commentary I wouldn't object.

Back in the real word, Do you know of any contributors that would be able to advise on 'female' travel issues more generally ? (https://en.wikivoyage.org/wiki/Tips_for_women_travellers being the relevant article.) ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 11:41, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Talk page stalker coming out from the shadows here. I think maybe the Moberly–Jourdain incident might be able to be shoehorned into that topic somehow. John Carter (talk) 16:32, 11 March 2015 (UTC)


 * , I'm sorry, I don't have time to help, but if you post a request on WT:GGTF, someone there might be able to. Sarah (SV) (talk) 17:40, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

User:Timelezz

 * Hi SV, just wondering if you have a look at this. Don't know if you're working as an uninvolved sysop in this are - if not, no worries I'll notify Callanecc too-- Cailil  talk 13:52, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I'll take a look. Sarah (SV) (talk) 15:43, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Shaygan Kheradpir
I was wondering if you had time to take a look at two versions of the Lead. You can see my notes on the current version here. I've been trying to draw attention to some editing patterns here for a couple months. CorporateM (Talk) 20:00, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi, sorry, I missed this earlier. I'll take a quick look, but if it's anything protracted I won't be able to get involved. Sarah (SV) (talk) 15:27, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Yah, it'll probably be protracted. I'm going to submit an SPI later today or tomorrow, but if they are paid accounts as I suspect, I'm sure they were smart enough not to edit from the same IP anyway. CorporateM (Talk) 15:29, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

banana
After much searching, I see you are responsible. Please unlock this article because Wikipedia asks me to edit and you are preventing it because of your lock. Thank you.

There's a sentence that some may think has racist undertones. A minor change would fix any such possibility. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Silly banana vomit (talk • contribs) 00:25, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Margaret Bondfield
Last year you kindly contributed to the above article's peer review or or FAC or both. An issue has arisen from yesterday's TFA appearance, and is under discussion on the article's talk. Briefly: an editor added into the text the cited information that Bondfield's was privately known as "Maggie", and then incorporated this into the lead so the subject appeared as Margaret Grace ("Maggie") Bondfield. I have removed the nickname from the lead, and stated my position on the talkpage. I would be pleased if you could visit and briefly comment there. Brianboulton (talk) 16:36, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I've left a comment. Sarah (SV) (talk) 15:28, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Brendan Emmett Quigley
Hi SlimVirgin, you recently semi-protected Brendan Emmett Quigley for a week. The edits have however resumed after the week has passed (removal of image, etc). Your continued input in this article would be greatly appreciated. Thank you in advance. Sincerely, Taketa (talk) 05:40, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi, I've added indefinite semi-protection. Sarah (SV) (talk) 15:25, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Isabeau
Thanks again for the copyedits and nudges for Isabeau. Very much appreciated and definitely necessary. I've added the image of the statue to the external links with the hopes that it might get a few views. Victoria (tk) 19:02, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
 * You're very welcome. It's looking good! Best of luck for later. Sarah (SV) (talk) 19:10, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

RfC tag thing
thanks for fixing that. Jytdog (talk) 01:17, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

You have just restored my faith

 * Thanks, . It's nice to see you around again. Sarah (SV) (talk) 16:22, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, not everyone feels that way ;) I'm glad for your suggestion to move the "COI-like" discussion after the ANI has run its course.  Let's do that.    petrarchan47  t  c   00:13, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Neonics thing
Hi - you have the story wrong, on the neonics thing. Please actually read Talk:Neonicotinoid/Archive_1 and see what happened there. Kingofaces offered an example of the kind of source that should be used - a review article. He never put that example in the article or even suggested putting that source in the article. EllenCT latched on to its funding by Bayer and tried to hang that like an albatross around his neck. She beat that horse and beat that horse. That was one small part of the behavior pattern that led me to try to seek a topic ban for her. She was incredibly disruptive. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jytdog (talk • contribs) 23:25, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
 * As a matter of fact, it was not at all so simple as you seem to want to make it sound. What he said was, "We should be using secondary literature (i.e. review articles) such as this: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/etc.2527/full " which was deemed by both of you to be a good source with no need to even mention that it was corporate-funded. This discussion took place in the midst of some edits that were being done that removed pesticides as one of the probable components of the mix that is presently considered to be the cause of CCD and of course, this Bayer review was in agreement with that.  In fact, it would make a good study tool for how to manipulate facts and wording to produce any desired result you want.  I have no doubt that it would have been used except that some editors put up a fuss about it.  BTW, you have complained bitterly and long about not pinging editors, perhaps you should take your own advise.  Sorry for sounding so adversarial, but the way you have spoken of Ellen is not at all acceptable.  Gandydancer (talk) 06:13, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Actually Gandy, it was exactly that simple. The piece you quoted "We should be using secondary literature (i.e. review articles) such as this . . ." was exactly as Jytdog described it. It was an example of what a secondary source or literature review is and nothing more than that. I've clarified that many times now and I don't intend to have this dredged up every time someone decides to ignore that. The sources I was primarily putting content together from were listed later in the discussion, but they don't even differ significantly in content from the Bayer funded source anyways. It's all really moot point, so I'd really appreciate if people would stop taking my posts out of context and leave it be. Kingofaces43 (talk) 14:34, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
 * , literature reviews are used on WP as secondary sources, and are often understood to be independent and uninvolved. In this case two of the authors appear to be industry consultants, and the study was funded by Bayer, a major manufacturer of the insecticide the paper is about. If this were a mistake on your part, it would be no big deal, but the defence of it, and your opinion that funding doesn't matter when it comes to scientific studies, is a concern. That's why it continues to be mentioned. Sarah (SV) (talk) 16:32, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
 * SV and Gandy, you both continue to ignore the fact that KoF brought this up only as example and never actually used it as a source nor even proposed content based on it, and EllenCT's behavior, acting as though he did and pounding away on that, was battleground, ugly behavior. That you are continuing, full force.  It is a violation of the TPG  - see Talk_page_guidelines: "Do not misrepresent other people: " (emphasis from the original).  Please stop doing that. And Gandy, here (Talk:Neonicotinoid/Archive_1) were my reflections on that source. You mischaracterize me.   Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 13:11, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
 * also, Gandy, the close of the ANI on EllenCt said: "we have no clear consensus on a topic ban, though there are plenty of valid concerns about EllenCT's behavior and temperament, as is demonstrated in this very thread by Ellen's reactions." So - the concerns were valid.   I acknowledge that the close continued: "Still, some avenues to help alleviate the concerns that gave rise to the problematic behavior have been pointed out, and in general, there is simply not enough support to install such a drastic measure as a topic ban. Clearly, lessons can and should be drawn from this discussions, not just by Ellen but also by other parties. And with that, I think it is proper we close this" Jytdog (talk) 13:19, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Where did I mention Ellen's editing? I didn't.  All I said was that the way you have spoken of her is not acceptable.  Because that's what you do - when you smell blood you close in for the kill and then you become surprised that anyone would find your actions...to use a couple of words that you use all the time for the actions of others, ugly and icky. Just look at the way you were treating Ozzie when I had to email you about it.  Ozzie is one of the nicest guys here but he does have some competent issues - as is well-known by all of those that work with him almost daily on the African Ebola article because every single one of his edits need work of some sort or another.  But nobody gets all pissy about it.  Sure we want good articles here, but we need to foster good relationships as well or we'll end up with only a core of editors that know every policy ever written and have the time to spend endless hours of work to push their particular POV forward.  User:David Tornheim is another example.  As far as I can tell, he's just a normal sort of person that has not yet realized that attempting to discuss can be called canvassing and to say anything in support of alt med, something BTW believed in by the overwhelming majority of people around the world, makes one a pseudo-med pusher.  Pathetic.  Gandydancer (talk) 16:52, 28 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Jytdog, once again (for the third or fourth time?), the reason there was concern is that Kingofaces wrote: "... our job as editors is ... to summarize the current scientific consensus ... We should be using secondary literature (i.e. review articles) such as this: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/etc.2527/full"


 * It sounds as though he wanted to use that source to "summarize the current scientific consensus." But the source is an industry-funded one, and two of the authors appear to be industry consultants. When challenged, he didn't say "oops, sorry about that." He wrote: "Funding source is not relevant in assessing scientific studies, it's the content that needs to be addressed ... If you want to dispute the content then do so ... but we shouldn't be chasing red herrings about funding source. However, your assumption of 'paid for conclusions' is only that, an assumption, and it is going into original research territory." Sarah (SV) (talk) 17:11, 28 March 2015 (UTC)


 * SlimVirgin, I don't need to say "oops, sorry" for something never intended from my post nor should even be thought of by anyone reading it in context. Even after being warned and explaining the intent of my comments both on the article page and at ANI, you are clearly going into the territory of misrepresenting an editor's comment now. That is a very much going against WP:TPG. That is not behavior that should be condoned by anyone, much less someone in an admin position. Again, just simply stop doing that. You are cherrypicking specific statements of mine to take them completely out of the conversation's context. Regardless of why, your behavior is becoming tendentious here after explaining this so many times in general and to you. It's time to drop the stick when editors tell you exactly what they meant.


 * Just to make sure it's right here for you, I'll provide the context yet again (wall of text warning to be thorough). I specifically said funding source does not matter for us as editors in assessing peer-reviewed sources. That is because when someone is saying a study isn't reliable because of funding source, they are really insinuating the study's findings aren't reliable because the the study if incorrect in some way. If the study really is crappy, that can be picked out in the methods of the paper, its results, or in its interpretations. That's why when peer-reviews come in for papers, peer-reviewers go straight for the meat and point out flaws in the study design, etc. Funding source does not implicitly imply study (un)reliability. They can't reject a paper on funding source alone, so it's a red herring to focus on that as a peer-reviewer. If a study has improper conclusions due to either just honest mistake (happens to all scientists) or some more malicious effect of industry affiliation, the improper conclusion should be called out either during peer-review if it's caught then, other papers citing it later directly, or just ignoring the paper and only mentioning the mainstream consensus in future reviews.


 * As editors though, we cannot conduct peer-review. We are not considered experts here for that. We instead rely primarily on literature reviews to establish the scientific consensus or call out flawed experiments and papers. That is exactly what I was referring to in saying we needed literature reviews to summarize the scientific consensus and is well supported by our various policies and guidelines on the matter. If there was something wrong with this source in question, that's up for other literature reviews to call out. However, upon reading it though when assessing weights of various claims, it's not saying anything vastly different from the other studies that were discussed later. That made all the drama about that source rather moot point. If you were following the rest of the conversation on that specific source, we (including myself) did agree that it was not a truly independent source because the authors were involved. This does not disqualify such a source here because the peer-review process vets these papers as well and directly calls to attention when authors have a real-life COI for reviewers to be extra cautious about. That would instead mean we'd be still be wary about the source in assigning weight if it is significantly different from other sources or using it in isolation. As for industry-funded studies, we consider those reliable when an independent party (i.e., university researchers) do the work because their vested interest is in doing a properly designed experiment on top of the additional layer of peer-review. Notice that is all about the authors affiliation and not basing decisions on funding source.


 * As for my purposes in my comment to EllenCT (as I've stated many times now) I was simply saying here's an example a literature review: it reviews the current literature, summarizes it for us, the structure of what a review looks like, and isn't a primary research article. That's it. I know that whole kerfuffle with EllenCT covered a lot of ground, but reading the conversations within even a few days of a given post should give you more than enough context to show certain claims about me will just not fly. Either way I'm considering the issue with Ellen buried as long as she keeps it that way too, so I really suggest doing the same. That way there shouldn't be any need to continue this cycle of spelling out what I meant in every comment I made taken in isolation (or need to reach a post of this length). I'll consider the whole neonicotinoid discussion with you done at this point. I am more than happy to discuss the nature of scientific publishing, what actually goes on, what flaws there are, and how all that affects us here at Wikipedia in general. That's something probably better left for a new talk section, and is something I wouldn't mind discussing at my talk page either (in much shorter posts) if that's what really interests you. Kingofaces43 (talk) 05:20, 29 March 2015 (UTC)


 * "As for industry-funded studies, we consider those reliable when an independent party (i.e., university researchers) do the work because their vested interest is in doing a properly designed experiment on top of the additional layer of peer-review. Notice that is all about the authors affiliation and not basing decisions on funding source." Really?  Who is this "we" you are talking about?  Can you cite policy, preferably not the entire page, but a quote from it that supports the view that the entity funding a study is not relevant to its credibility if a university is involved?  Does this standard also apply to the Séralini affair?
 * "I specifically said funding source does not matter for us as editors in assessing peer-reviewed sources. That is because when someone is saying a study isn't reliable because of funding source, they are really insinuating the study's findings aren't reliable because the the study if incorrect in some way. If the study really is crappy, that can be picked out in the methods of the paper, its results, or in its interpretations. That's why when peer-reviews come in for papers, peer-reviewers go straight for the meat and point out flaws in the study design, etc. Funding source does not implicitly imply study (un)reliability. They can't reject a paper on funding source alone, so it's a red herring to focus on that as a peer-reviewer. If a study has improper conclusions due to either just honest mistake (happens to all scientists) or some more malicious effect of industry affiliation, the improper conclusion should be called out either during peer-review if it's caught then, other papers citing it later directly, or just ignoring the paper and only mentioning the mainstream consensus in future reviews.". Again can you please cite a specific part of policy, guideline, etc. that supports this claim? And so this also applies to the Séralini affair study which was republished? David Tornheim (talk) 11:45, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
 * WP:INDY answers your first question by having a third-party involved. I'm not sure what you're referring to with the second. If you want to discuss this further, I suggest taking this to the article talk page if your focus is on specific content here you have a question about. If it's more broad-sense in how we deal with scientific literature, feel free to ask at my talk page. This specific conversation here has gone on long enough, and I'd rather not branch it off to another topic. Best start a new conversation for this. Kingofaces43 (talk) 13:55, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Kingofaces43, I'd really prefer not to discuss this anymore. I urge you to read about the flaws of peer review, particularly in relation to financial COI.

Re: the article, I don't know what else to say. It's clear from the thread that you suggested, more than once, using a Bayer-funded article, in which two of the four authors were industry consultants, as a literature review regarding a product Bayer manufactures. You wrote: "We should be using secondary literature (i.e. review articles) such as this," and provided a link. Jytdog then arrived to support that it was an RS. If Ellen and Gandy hadn't objected, it would probably be in the article illustrating the scientific consensus. All I can do is ask you to consider using independent sources in articles about these major financial interests, or use in-text attribution to tell the reader when you use an industry source, so that the reader knows what you know. Sarah (SV) (talk) 16:07, 29 March 2015 (UTC)


 * I don't think anyone is calling peer-review perfect (I'm well aware of issues with it), but it's the best we got. What I described above is how the process is intended to catch flaws as humanly possible regardless of reason for them. Still happy to discuss that all at a later date if you want (WP:MEDASSESS, especially the last paragraph, covers my views on this pretty well for additional reference). However, your comment related to Gandy and Ellen is highly inappropriate and rising to the level of a personal attack considering what I just explained to you above exactly about my intent and especially considering that the source didn't offer significantly different viewpoints from other sources. It really was just intended as a shorter literature review good for introductory reading on the topic before delving into the larger sources and introducing what a literature review is. Whether purposeful or just good-faith WP:IDHT, misrepresenting someone's comments are not ok. I've asked you nicely and repeatedly to refrain from this, so consider this your official warning not to engage in further personal attacks by misrepresenting my statements when I have already explained them to you. Just stop infusing drama into the situation that way, and I see no reason why we couldn't work together entirely collaboratively if our paths cross in the future. I am done with this conversation here as well, so I really just suggest burying the neonic thing as everyone else has done. Kingofaces43 (talk) 20:42, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

unreviewed article
Hello there. Could you possibly spend a moment and review this article and remove the template from the top of this article, please? Thank you in advance.

The unreviewed article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ali_Caszadeh SlimSlim (talk) 12:12, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Question
Sarah, there is something that I've wondered about for a long time that is related to COI editing. One need look no further than my user page where I quote Chris Hedges: "They control our systems of information." and add: Surely no one could be so naive as to believe that corporations do not have an interest in turning our encyclopedia into a corporate-approved encyclopedia. At a certain point one must admit that to not fight the creep of corporate control into our articles really does make us appear to be a bunch of easily-led, lame-brained, losers just willing to go along with the flow rather than to tackle the problem and try to come up with some sort of strategy. What, if anything, is presently being done? I'm aware that a few years ago an editor asked for some sort of outside check to "prove" that he had no COI related to the articles he edits, and I've heard of this incident dozens of times since, where it is raised as absolute evidence of a lack of conflict of interest. Many times I've wondered how Wikipedia went about finding this so-called proof. If I put myself in a position in which I was editing for pay but denied it, how could it be proven that I was? I mention this because the first thing you know all a paid editor need do is have WP give him/her the WP Stamp of Approval and from then on that editor is home free to do as they please. They can now proudly display their badge of approval and anyone who questions them is now seen as a disgruntled editor in need of a reality check. Gandydancer (talk) 01:32, 28 March 2015 (UTC)


 * I agree that that's a concern, and I don't know what was done in that particular case. Generally speaking, nothing is being done. Less than nothing, because people who raise concerns risk being sanctioned. Sarah (SV) (talk) 01:35, 28 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Have you been following the discussion at Jimbo's talk page? Arbs (current and recently retired) who have commented there make it clear that COI should be ignored. Depressing. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:49, 28 March 2015 (UTC)


 * I haven't seen that discussion (will look shortly), but it's true that several actions by former Arbs have made things harder. Sarah (SV) (talk) 02:07, 28 March 2015 (UTC)


 * @ Boris Yes, I sure have and it has made me very heavy of heart indeed.  Strangely, I have developed a closeness to Indian students through my work on the case of the Indian student that was gang raped on the bus and have felt an odd closeness to her parents who sold their land and spent all they had on her education...  On the other hand, working on an Indian article has made it easier for me to see how an editor could completely take over an article which dealt with India and Indian politics - it can be very complex.


 * Though that said, the same thing can happen when dealing with a large US corporation, Monsanto for example. When you have one editor that knows everything there is to know about its workings and has two, three, and four, the number of edits than any other editor, it is difficult for any editor, let alone a newbie, to make much headway with their editing.  Add to that, and as was noted in the Indian case, when an experienced editor knows every WP:THIS AND WP:THAT that there is, who can compete with that?  That is getting into professional editorship, paid or not, and people like me can't possibly compete with that. I would never have the know-how to present a case against anyone that I felt needed to be dealt with. I think that we need to form a group that can assist editors that are concerned about corporate influence.  Frankly, I'd guess that most concerns are not well-grounded - newbies need help understanding that our policies rightly need to put the brakes on including poorly sourced information.  But, it could be done in a way that does not  belittle editors and cause all this self-righteous drama.


 * As far as I can tell, WP seems to be catching the small time crooks making a few bucks on the side and does not even seem to be interested in discussing the probability that the big boyz have all time time, and money, in the world to influence their articles. Gandydancer (talk) 02:38, 28 March 2015 (UTC)


 * That is indeed a very depressing discussion. Re: MastCell's point about the chilling effect of the WillBeBack case, agree completely. It has been the single most destructive thing in efforts to deal with COI. Gandy, you're right. We catch the guy who earns $200 for writing a vanity bio, and do nothing about the industries that control all content about themselves. Sarah (SV) (talk) 03:19, 28 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Very interesting thread here. I'm wanting to discuss the potential for an ArbCom regarding specific editors working as a gang), and the rampant pro-industry POV ('COI-like') editing.  I'd also like to discuss the possibility of creating a task force to support editors who encounter this activity.  From what I understand, the MEDRS team has a support system for those who find talk of "fringe" on our pages.  Are there systems set up that could serve as an example for such a task force?  Like, I've kept my head stuck in article space.  Most editors probably aren't equipped to deal with the ensuing noticeboards and wiki-lawyering they will encounter at many articles.  If they had somewhere to turn for outside, independent feedback and advice, we might not be watching our editorial pool whither away.  In the fight for content control, running editors off the site seems to be the goal.  How can we counteract this?    petrarchan47  t  c   22:43, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I hate saying this, but maybe at some point you have to just shrug and say "you can't fight City Hall". If arbcom says we're not allowed to look into undisclosed COI then we're not allowed to look into undisclosed COI. You can try, if you think it's worth the risk of getting permabanned. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 00:17, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I haven't mentioned COI. Maybe you were responding to someone else?   petrarchan47  t  c   00:31, 29 March 2015 (UTC)


 * , the issue is volunteer time. First, is right: ArbCom is unlikely to help with anything related to COI, because they've been part of the problem. One thing you could do is relaunch WikiProject Integrity, or create a task force that's part of that wikiproject – e.g. the COI task force, or if you want to take the focus away from COI, the Advocacy task force. Ask people to sign up if they're willing to help, including thinking through the definitions. The big issue is that there aren't many editors willing to do this work, and they get burned out very quickly. But the Wifione case, and those students in India who lost money because of it, really should be a wake-up call. Sarah (SV) (talk) 00:39, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, let's hope so. I certainly don't care to take on a project like this, but I would be willing to offer support.    petrarchan47  t  c   01:10, 29 March 2015 (UTC)


 * , I think anyone wanting a solution will have to take the lead. I talked to someone recently who has experience of dealing with COI in publishing. Their advice was that the Foundation should be urged to set up a group of COI specialists who can topic-ban editors from articles where there appears to be control on behalf of financial interests.


 * The Foundation isn't going to do that. But they might give a grant to volunteers – a group who would gather the evidence and propose topic bans to the community. It would mean a lot of work; see Grants:IdeaLab and Grants:Start. You would have to find editors who understand why COI is damaging (e.g., , , , ), put whatever differences there are to one side, and (with the grant) pay for some specialist help and pay yourselves for the research. I completely understand why you wouldn't want to devote the time, but I want to leave it here as a suggestion anyway. Sarah (SV) (talk) 18:59, 29 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Thank you for taking the time. This does sound like a rational approach.  It's a big project for someone who isn't committed to WP anymore, but perhaps others will see this and decide to take it on.  Meanwhile I'll be pondering and supporting you all from afar.    petrarchan47  t  c   19:35, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

So I have been trying to address COI issue regarding paid editing via armies of sock puppets. What I have found is:


 * Jimmy Wales is supportive of us doing something
 * We have TOU that does not allow it
 * The WMF is not interested in enforcing the TOU. They want us to do it.
 * Arbcom does not see it as a problem. And does not feel the TOU apply to them.
 * There appears to be little desire to run check users on these sock puppet armies.
 * It is unclear if one can link to other accounts and thus on can likely not discuss much evidence around COI on Wikipedia without risk of banning
 * It is unclear if arbcom will ban editors who try to deal with it but they may
 * The WMF has not agreed to provide support to editors if they are so banned by arbcom
 * Elance and Fiverr are willing to comply with our TOU by deleting account there.
 * I have proposed to the WMF the creation of a specific group of functionaries to deal with TOU enforcement. The WMF has not replied after more than a month and a fair number of emails.
 * The WP:COIN notice board is where much work takes place. Needs more help.

So were to from here?


 * I have proposed a panel on the topic in Mexico (Jimmy Wales has agreed to introduce it, no one from Arbcom has agreed to be on it, Legal at the WMF is still thinking about it)
 * If there was community support to create a new group of functionaries to enforce the TOU than the WMF may be willing to support the creation of one. That is the next RfC on the topic. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 22:59, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

I am willing to help for free, and will do whatever I can. Time is not a constraint. Travel could be since you might have to goat tie me and drag me off this island. I can't be bought, but I can be persuaded for the right reasons. My Dad always said, "Sweetie, integrity is an expensive virtue." Atsme &#9775;  Consult  22:05, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
 * , what is your take on Sarah's idea to relaunch WikiProject Integrity, or create a task force that's part of that wikiproject – e.g....the Advocacy task force as a way to begin addressing advocacy editing (spin-doctoring), and the misuse of guidelines to that end?   petrarchan47  t  c   22:33, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Just give me the authority and the tools, and if I can't dazzle you with brilliance, I'll baffle you with BS. SMirC-chuckle.svg Seriously, I am soooooo ready to do something.  I see the problem, and I can almost recite our 3 core policies to you by memory.  I also have the extra time because of my semi-retirement (which basically means I work harder for free) so let's do it - I'll take the lead if needed, but I hope Sarah will help guide me along.  I'm a fast learner.  Gimme, gimme, gimme.  I'll train, I'll travel, I'll type - tell me where to start.  Atsme  &#9775;  Consult  23:03, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I would also be willing to help out with a WikiProject Integrity type project or in creating such a task force, although my time online has been somewhat limited lately. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 23:38, 30 March 2015 (UTC)


 * ,, and , a way to start might be to spruce up the WikiProject Integrity page so that it looks lived in. Find some templates, add a bit of design, some images, write a good intro setting out its parameters (e.g. COI, paid and unpaid advocacy), and announce a relaunch. Sarah (SV) (talk) 00:01, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
 * That's a good idea. By the way, I see that I was pinged by you and another editor concerning discussions still ongoing at AN/I and T:COI. I have been away for a few days but will certainly take a look. The discussions have grown very large I see. I'm complimented to be invited into a discussion, as usually people want me to go away! Coretheapple (talk) 16:57, 31 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Sarah mentioned another, more in-depth approach too (scroll up). I started a thread about this idea at Atsme's talk page here. Sarah, if you care to expand on it, please do stop by (or it can be moved here, but I didn't want to disrupt the conversations re task force and essay).    petrarchan47  t  c   19:28, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Rukeyser.gif
 Thanks for uploading File:Rukeyser.gif. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 16:17, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Hello
Smallbones( smalltalk ) 20:02, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Help please
Hi there Sarah, at the Rape in India article the second para in the lead reads:


 * The incidence of reported rapes in India are among the lowest in the world.[5] However parliamentarians have expressed concern that majority of rape cases go unreported.[6] Compared to other developed and developing countries, reported rapes per 100,000 people are quite low in India.[7] The incidence of reported rapes in India are among the lowest in the world.[5] However parliamentarians have expressed concern that majority of rape cases go unreported.[6] Compared to other developed and developing countries, reported rapes per 100,000 people are quite low in India.[7] India has been characterized as one of the "countries with the lowest per capita rates of rape".[8]

Concerned about refs #5 and #7, I put in a request at the Reliable sources notice board (#14) and they agreed that these refs are not acceptable. I would like to change the para to read:

India has been characterized as one of the "countries with the lowest per capita rates of rape".[8] However parliamentarians have expressed concern that majority of rape cases go unreported.[6]

Having worked on several Indian rape cases in the past, It has been my impression that rape and politics go hand in hand in India. I would like to work on this article and am wondering just how it happened that only admins are allowed there - something I've never run into before in all the years I've been editing. Thoughts? Gandydancer (talk) 14:58, 30 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Hi, the best thing is to ask the protecting admin, , to reduce to semi-protection so that you and can edit, or if he intended full protection because of a content dispute, to reduce it to the usual few days, rather than two weeks. Standard procedure is first to approach the protecting admin, and if disagreement about protection level remains, go to WP:RFPU.


 * Re: your proposed change, it looks fine, though I think it would read better without "however". Also, minor point, the edit needs a "the," as in "the majority of rape cases ..." Good luck in tackling such a difficult article. Sarah (SV) (talk) 18:28, 30 March 2015 (UTC)


 * , what you want changed is part of the second "war", you need to leave a message on the article's talk page first.  The article is undergoing the second major "war" in the past few weeks. Sock puppets, harassment and accusations are only some of the "fun".  Multiple people were blocked during the first "war" before I got involved and added page protection.  I brokered a settlement for the first "war", but have not gotten involved in second.  I'm hoping the parties come to an agreement first.  has left messages on my talk page seeking advice and asking questions.  They are having trouble expressing their point of view... it is on the confusing side.  I'm getting on my knees to beg and plead for you to add in your voice on the talk page.  Any voice of sanity would be extremely helpful.  Bgwhite (talk) 19:59, 30 March 2015 (UTC)


 * I just added "the" that Sarah suggested. It was requested by Bargolus on the talk page.  Gandydancer, beware that your suggestion will probably be greeted as, "you are a sockpuppet" by one of the editors.  Ignore them.  They have been warned, repeatedly,  to stop saying everybody against their point of view is a sockpuppet.  Bgwhite (talk) 07:31, 31 March 2015 (UTC)