User talk:Jimbo Wales/Archive 142

Editing environment

Jimbo, What are your thoughts regarding the current editing environment on Wikipedia, i.e. how editors interact with each other and how productive that interaction is? And where do you think it is heading? Also, is it what you expected it to be when Wikipedia began? Thanks. --Bob K31416 (talk) 12:22, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

It's about the same as ever. Not as nice as it could be in parts, but nicer than one would expect from looking at other communities.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 13:21, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Speaking from experience, I think initiatives like the Teahouse have improved the quality and the productiveness of interactions on Wikipedia. But you don't have to take my word for it; here is a metrics report on meta describing the overwhelmingly positive results of new editors using this resource. I, JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 15:22, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

The pipe in your link should be a space. The bare URL is https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Teahouse/Phase_2_report/Metrics.

—Wavelength (talk) 16:09, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

That was some very informative research. Teahouse is clearly working and the bottom line seems to be that Teahouse guests edit more and interact more with others. an average 30 minute response time is nothing to sneeze at either.--Mark Miller (talk) 17:00, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Jimbo, re "nicer than one would expect from looking at other communities" — That might be due in part to WP:NPA. --Bob K31416 (talk) 20:59, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

NPA is not very effectively enforced, unfortunately. There are some discussions here that are outright nasty, e.g. the recent Manning debacle. Despite all of the nasty things said, only two editors were referred to AN/I and in both cases the net effect was a convoluted mess where there was no consensus in one case and the other was kicked around until the proposed sanction became a moot point. WP:CIVIL is often seen as a selectively enforced bludgeon that is primarily used to WP:BITE newbies and is rarely used to control the behavior of vested contributors. 71.231.186.92 (talk) 03:01, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Re "NPA is not very effectively enforced, unfortunately." — My impression is that when NPA is mentioned, the situation improves without enforcement. Also, I think that editors who are aware of NPA will tend to be less inclined to make personal attacks in the first place. In any culture, there is a tendency to conform and NPA helps direct the conforming tendency towards a good behavior. --Bob K31416 (talk) 16:25, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Jethro that the Teahouse was an improvement but Jimbo's statements pretty much reflect how much he doesn't understand what's going on under then hood. There are more fights and battles than in the past, not the same. More admins abusing the tools, not the same or less. There are less editors editing and the tools being created (like VE) are making things worse. Civility is at an all time low around the project and all Jimbo can say is its about the same. No,not right, not even a little bit. Kumioko (talk) 16:37, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

I think that was an unfair remark. I asked for Jimbo's thoughts on the subject and he complied. Similarly, I consider your remarks as your thoughts on the matter. It is curious that just after I made a comment re NPA, you made a comment that was somewhat of a personal attack. Was there any connection in your mind? Thanks. --Bob K31416 (talk) 16:46, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Not really but as someone who watches this page a lot and sees a lot of Jimbo's comments I more and more find it irritating when people ask him a question and he dodges it as he did above. Its also disheartening to think he believes that "It's about the same as ever" which is utterly not the case and for him to say that, frankly, shows how little he really knows. Its like he's driving the car but doesn't understand how the engine makes it go and doesn't do any of the maintenance. He's basically making a statement and showing he doesn't understand. What's even worse is he himself has acknowledged on multiple occasions that the environment is bad and has even said he would try and do something to fix it. I myself have asked hi numerous times to help fix numerous problems , as have others. We are all still waiting for action that will probably at this point never come. In the mean time we are cleaning up the messes being made from the WMF after releasing unfinished broken software like Visual Editor that causes more problems than nit fixes commons has turned into little more than a porn site and the list goes on. Kumioko (talk) 16:51, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

FWIW, I was satisfied by his answer to my question. I didn't expect or want a detailed comprehensive response about the status of the Wikipedia editing environment. It's too big a subject for this talk page section. I understand that you are disappointed in his response, but then we are different in attitudes and style in discussions in Wikipedia and I have accepted such differences when I discuss topics with other editors such as yourself. However, if one thinks an editor is being unfair to another editor, it might help from time to time to mention that and not be just a bystander. What do you think of that? --Bob K31416 (talk) 13:56, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Fair enough and I can accept and agree that my comment may have seemed unfair. My comment towards Jimbo was in actuality fair although it was a bit rude. But if my remark provokes him into action, rather than the continued benign neglect he has shown in the past towards the subject, then I can live with being perceived as a jerk. Jimbo knows that I care more about the success of the project than his feelings so I doubt he takes it personally. Kumioko (talk) 14:24, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

I appreciate the conciliatory aspects of your last message. One thing to consider is whether your previous messages contain a type of combative tone that you would like to see cleaned up in Wikipedia. --Bob K31416 (talk) 15:48, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

My own experience coincides exactly with the remarks of KumiokoCleanStart. That view is further supported by the very public experience of Philip Roth and Messer-Kruse. Putting aside current-event and celebrity news type articles, serous contributions to more encyclopedic-like articles are largely squelched, with many history pages showing years of only small-byte changes due in part to ownership problems by article gatekeepers. From a broad perspective, this situation is the continuation of whatever happened in 2006-2007 that caused an about-turn in WP stats. As KumiokoCleanStart has pointed out, putting a smiley-face on things isn't going to fix matters, and poor articles will remain ossified because of a non-collaborative environment. Brews ohare (talk) 15:13, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Roth is probably not a good example, looking at what actually happened when - David Gerard (talk) 16:40, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

I admit its easy to dismiss Roth's comments based on the history, but he makes some valid points. The problem is we as editors don't see or attempt to fix the problems and avoid making comments to bring about change until we have been thrown into the snake pit and had to climb out and lick our wounds from the bites and venom. At which time, we make statements about the negativity in this place and people say things to minimize the statements. They then try and ignore the fact that although Wikipedia has a noble mission, its also struggling to perform its function, its mired in beauracracy and its generally a toxic environment to participate in. Its like living in a verbal and emotional warzone. We need change and I'm not talking about a half assed Visual editor. Software is only part of it. We need to clean up our policies, our procedures and our attitudes. We need to allow people to participate not continue to restrict editing more and more so that the only ones who can do anything are those with the Sysop tools. Etc. Etc., Etc. There are a lot of problems that need to be addressed, many of which the community hsa shown repeatedly we are incapable of doing and need outside intervention from Jimbo or the WMF. But when we ask for changes we are ignored or given some bullshit excuse like we are working on it...or they give us some half ass product like Visual editor that's released months before it was ready, with limited functionality and more problems than can be counted. Kumioko (talk) 16:56, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Regarding changes requested for improving the editing environment, could you briefly summarize some of them? Thanks. --Bob K31416 (talk) 19:29, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

I've written a few essays about this over the years. Writing clear sanctions, Filtering which cases ArbCon accepts, What Admins should do. A few of these ideas might resonate, maybe one or two? Brews ohare (talk) 19:38, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Sure, there are dozens but here are a couple:

1. The current RFA process is a nightmare and needs to be reengineered to not be such a gauntlet. Better still, we need to remove some of the tools from the admin toolset into separate permissions so that those of us that aren't admins can help out. These include: The ability to edit protected templates, the ability to see some of the restricted maintenance reports that are restricted to admins and the ability to pull in more than 25000 articles into AWB.
2. There is no reason for us to have hundreds of editing policies and guidelines. This is hard for those of us that have been here for a while and nearly impossible for newby's
3. We need to stop using indefinite bans for minor infractions
4. We need to be fair and consistent when making policy decisions. As it is there is too much favoritism and protectionism of ones wikipals.
5. We need to start enforcing some of the rules like Article ownership. Too many editors and projects have the attitude they "own" the articles. The problem is we rarely enforce it. Even less so when they are admins.
6. We need to hold admins accountable. Its too hard to become and admin and even harder to remove the tools from a bad one. Its almost impossible in fact and there are quite a few bad ones that shouldn't have it. Where better off without them.

There are more but most of these have come up on this very page and most have had comments from Jimbo saying they know its a problem and they are "working" on a solution...but we still wait. Kumioko (talk) 19:42, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

KumiokoCleanStart: I put a link into your comment directing RFA at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests. If that's not your intention, please change it, with my apologies. Your suggestions are good ones, I think.

Whatever the specific recommendations may be, the most important objective is to make Talk pages a place where collaboration occurs. There is a tendency for Talk pages to degenerate into squalor, eventually migrating to AN/I or ArbCom where there are often no participants that know the subject area, and everything boils down to personalities and alliances. There are rules already that could improve Talk pages if they were properly enforced to guide interaction toward content. But instead, the culture of Talk pages has degenerated into one-upmanship and schoolyard shenanigans. Brews ohare (talk) 19:55, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know and its no problem at all. Arbcom is another area where some major changes need to occur but I didn't include that in my list above. I was actually referring to the Request for Adminship so I changed it to reflect that. I also agree with your comments about talk pages and the threats from the WMF about FLOW don't help either. Kumioko (talk) 20:02, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Kumioko, Thanks. Have you tried to suggest solutions at places like Village Pump, policy pages, etc.? --Bob K31416 (talk) 20:16, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

You must be new here..lol. :-) Yeah, so much so that people are sick of hearing from me about it. Kumioko (talk) 21:40, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

I generally agree with what you want, although the RFA one I don't know much about the subject. Finding solutions may be difficult.

I have a couple of ideas re improving the editing environment. One is to have a corps of moderators that can come into heated arguments to cool things down and help the two sides understand better each other's positions. Another is to have advocates who are available to editors who need help when it comes to the dispute resolution process and policy interpretation. This might even the playing field a bit, especially for new editors. These moderators and advocates would have the respective titles like administrators do. I expect there's all sorts of flaws with these ideas but what the heck, I'll just mention it anyways. --Bob K31416 (talk) 22:03, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Perennial proposals#Hierarchical structures.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 00:28, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

(ec)That's been brought up before too and here's another one along those lines. I have always thought that someone should police the 1400+ admins to make sure they stay on the straight and narrow. They should also have the power remove the tools if necessary, even if only temporarily. I have suggested this be done by the crats, because they are the next layer above admins or by a couple of folks at the WMF. Neither group seemed interested in playing admin cop,so were left with a system where admin is essentially for life and its almost impossible to remove the tools from one unless they give it up voluntarily or we do a multi-month arbitration hearing. Neither is very common. We do remove them from some who go inactive but only after a year of zero edits. Kumioko (talk) 00:33, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

I have the impression that my last message was misunderstood. Don't worry about it. --Bob K31416 (talk) 01:34, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Hi Bob: I think one way your ideas might be construed is that you'd like mechanisms to keep peace on Talk pages, and to soothe everybody down. Who could disagree with that? But what is most important is to focus people upon making good encyclopedia articles. That goal is not presently paramount. Instead WP (willy-nilly) seems to foster posturing and one-upmanship. The pleasures of collaborating on a good article are unknown and unfathomable to many. Brews ohare (talk) 04:37, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Maybe this might help clarify. The titles "Moderator" and "Advocate" would be separate from the title "Administrator" and wouldn't have any powers associated with them, although a moderator or advocate could request assistance from an administrator. --Bob K31416 (talk) 07:38, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Bob: Of course, once goals are set, strategy to achieve them can be discussed. Probably you'd agree that building an encyclopedia is the professed goal here. So what has happened to this goal? It is not a top priority on Talk pages if one looks at what actually goes on there. We do not see discussion of genuine differences in opinion over what sources say, but punditry (in the pejorative sense of a know-it-all) and one-upmanship. The motivation is not the project, but ego-satisfaction. Brews ohare (talk) 14:45, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

One view of this situation is that everyone is on board that this is an encyclopedia and sometimes editors just get carried away by other things. Then all we need is a bit of a nudge to get back to the job. Personally, I doubt this is the case. Many editors actually have no concept of what constructing an encyclopedia is about, and simply use it as another form of blogging or web entertainment. There are tools for Admins to contain this diversion, but unfortunately they also suffer from this same lack of conception and do the same thing. Brews ohare (talk) 12:25, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

I agree with that statement completely and as evidence all we need to do is look at the thousands of useless Userboxes. Kumioko (talk) 13:11, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

AN notification

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is "Seemingly heavy-handed semi-protection".The discussion is about the topic David Mathison. Thank you. --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 09:56, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, I've unprotected the article and we'll see what develops.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 11:38, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

What three articles could be the most important would you like to publicize?

Jimbo, if you were able to pick three articles on English Wikipedia to have them improved up to a featured level by the community, so that when you give interviews you could say "look at what our community recently did with article X, Y, and Z. We're really trying to make the world a better place." Which three (or more if that helps) would you pick? Biosthmors (talk) 19:46, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

With almost 5 million articles, I think it would be very tough for anyone to narrow it down to 3. Although articles like Jesus, that reached FA against all odds certainly come to mind. Joefromrandb (talk) 08:59, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Good one. It seems like a good idea for the WMF to issue a press release or a blog post about that. Maybe we could get some news articles written about it. Biosthmors (talk) 10:05, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Journalists could get expert opinion on the Jesus article, publish it, and we could make edits if any expert commentary suggested it was wise. Biosthmors (talk) 10:06, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Life, the Universe and Everything --Errant ^(chat!) 12:19, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

True enough Errant. Original posting amended. Biosthmors (talk) 13:50, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Article inclusion of personal info of non-notable minors

Hi, I've never posted to your page before. First, thanks for Wikipedia.
Second, there is an on-going discussion at WP:ANI#Privacy of personal information regarding whether the dates of birth of minors on youth soccer teams should be published within Wikipedia article space, an issue which has for-reaching implications for many other articles of similar nature. The two major arguments seems to be:

1. DOB should be included since it is already available elsewhere on the Internet
2. DOB for non-notable players should be excluded in an effort to prevent the personal info of minors from appearing on Wikipedia

A third position is to remove them all, notable or otherwise. I think this is an issue that cannot be solved simply by citing somewhat-related Wikipedia policies, and since no specific policy addresses this type of issue, I believe we may need either commentary or an outright decision from someone who has the authority to make an overarching decision, such as yourself, a founder of this project. Further, I think the issue of privacy of minor mandates a statement by someone within the Wikipedia Foundation regarding what is considered acceptable disclosure of personal info of minors. Thanks for any and all assistance in this matter! DKqwerty (talk) 23:37, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

1. We are not the disclosers; the reliable sources from which the DOBs are taken are the disclosers.

2. Why on earth should these kids be detailed in an encyclopedia article? This is not a collection of rosters of youth soccer teams, this is a reference work for general readers. Such laundry lists have no place here. --Orange Mike | Talk 00:17, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

If there is no policy on this issue surely there should be one, policies are not written in stone, and holes in our policies re minors should be a priority to close, IMO. Thanks, ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 00:27, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

"Why on earth should these kids be detailed in an encyclopedia article?" We are talking about people about the ages of 16 to 18 years old, who are among the top athletes in their country, who are selected to represent their country at a national level, and the teams are divided by age. That's why. There are hundreds of articles that have the ages of these athletes, and this isn't something new here. The individuals not being notable enough for their own article doesn't mean they shouldn't be listed on the current roster for a national-level team. The website of the rosters list the names of everyone on the team, and their birthdates since they are vital to how the teams are divided (U-17 for under seventeen, U-20 for those under twenty, etc.) Blanking the rosters and protecting them like what happened was an unacceptable alternative to not having their birthdates listed. Regards, — Moe Epsilon 04:18, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

I did not mean for this to be the place to discuss this, simply to make Jimbo aware that his opinion (or decision) may be required in this situation. DKqwerty (talk) 04:28, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Well, the community's opinion will carry far more weight than Jimbo's in cases like this. His word is worth the same as yours. Resolute 13:16, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

There appears to be some tension between the title of the thread ("non-notable minors") and the fact that they are listed in Wikipedia. There are several possible cases and I don't think there is any simple answer.

1. Highly notable and very famous minors whose date of birth is well known and indeed a public event (Prince George of Cambridge) and who have their own article
2. Minors notable enough to be mentioned in a Wikipedia entry, but not notable enough for their own article (many children of celebrities and politicians)
3. Minors not notable at all, who shouldn't even be mentioned

It very much matters the type and quality of source, and here as usual we have to be careful to avoid a binary view of "reliable source" versus "not reliable source" - it's one thing to have your date of birth published by the New York Times, and another thing for it to appear on the website of a fairly obscure but otherwise reliable youth sports organization, etc.

The point about the date of birth being relevant due to how the teams are divided is a valid one, but may not overcome other objections.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 14:02, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

• Perhaps show birthdates by season+year: I am wondering if young athletes could be denoted by seasonal birthdates: "Spring 1997" or "Winter 1996" for the 16-year-olds and such. -Wikid77 (talk) 15:26, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

I've worked on articles such as USA_Women's_U16_and_U17_teams, so I am sympathetic to the need to know the exact date of birth in some cases. I listed the participants in that article, without listing their birthdates. However, in the case of specific, notable participants, such as Kaleena Mosqueda-Lewis, I do have birthdates. (She is now 19, but was 17 at the time the article was started.) I'm not posting this as support for the notion that birthdates ought to be routinely included, but that any policy adopted ought to be nuanced, and some exceptions to a "don't post birth dates of minors" might be warranted.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 15:43, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Why do you need exact birth dates, vs year of birth? Presumably you can classify them on the right team via sources, but why do we need to share their exact birth dates? What encyclopedic purpose does it serve?--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 15:45, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

After a long talk with my kids I think I understand. Wikipedia has editors of all age and from all over. Think we are going to simply have to face the fact that youth editors (and youth readers) will find those listed at France national under-16 football team are notable. We should have a policy to deal with this in the future as to not have confusion as to who is notable for lists and if need be about minors. -- Moxy (talk) 17:16, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

I think raising the issue here was an acceptable, if edge-case, use of Jumbo's bully pulpit, but I don't think he wants us to do the specific policy wonkery here. If he does, I don't. I hope someone will identify a good place to carry on the detailed discussion.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 18:48, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

• As I said (or tried to say) this was only raised here because issues of privacy of minors cannot simply be solved by semi-democratic bickering, especially with the real-world ramifications. I have never edited the articles and consider my self a dispassionate, uninvolved user who is simply interested in the privacy issue, not the content issue; had this not involved minors and their privacy, I never would have requested his input on such an issue (as the military would say, ignoring the chain of command). I also did not mean for this to become a second or forked forum for an issue that's already been raised elsewhere. DKqwerty (talk) 03:56, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

• We have a bit of a circular argument here. The team is notable as a national team. The team members may not be individually notable, but any inherent notability is due to their membership on the team. In order to be a member of the team, they must legally be under a certain age - and that age must be proven. In order to prove that age, a parent/guardian must have given consent for that information to be released to not only the team, but to the governing body so that opposing teams can also verify that the players are legally on the team. That ends up turning the age into "public knowledge". As much as the Russian Football Federation should not be relying on Wikipedia to confirm that a player from Canada is of the correct age to play in an U16 tournament, the fans of the Russion Football Federation U16 team might just use Wikipedia as a resource. ES&L 17:23, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

FYI

Commons:Bureaucrats%27_noticeboard#Biographies_of_Living_Persons_and_Defamation. JKadavoor Jee 15:06, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Revert

Could someone please revert this deletion? Remember the article is on a 1RR restriction. Pass a Method talk 16:14, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

This doesn't seem like a valid issue for my user talk page, really. It's a good thing to discuss on the talk page of the article itself. Generally, things should be brought here when we'd like to have an open-ended but more philosophical discussion about rules and structures.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 16:51, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Still some http browsers slow to set username

There has been talk that some Firefox (or IE) browsers can login and use https-protocol, but they still cannot see the logged-in username during http transactions (http mode shows "Log in" & IP address, but no username). Meanwhile, some combinations of edits or browser settings can reset the http-mode to see the username, and so even those browsers might break the barrier and resume http-mode registered edits after a specific combination of actions will reset the username. -Wikid77 07:23, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Transphobia on Wikipedia

Hello,

I realise that this may be construed as a violation of my current (and hopefully to be rescinded) topic ban, but as a trans editor, I cannot simply sit and watch as Talk:Chelsea Manning is used as a platform for transphobic statements. On my twitter, I've collected several quotes from Wikipedia editors, including one administrator. This sort of behaviour, and the current systemic bias against trans people, has to stop. Selected quotes include:

• "By all means he can have surgery, wear women's clothes or have himself transformed into a dolphin, but leave wikipedia out of it."
• "Manning is a convicted criminal, and I couldn't care less about him/her/it."
• "If he (not she) said he wanted to be black now, would you describe him as African-American??"
• "And he could say he wants to be called Minnie Mouse, for all we care, but that don't make it so."
• "I don't think this project should be running around willy-nilly just because someone woke up this morning and said "today I am a girl!"."
• "I could declare myself as the King of England, but it doesn't mean Wikipedia will suddenly refer to me as His Majesty."
• "It is not an "opinion" that men have XY sex chromosomes and women have XX sex chromosomes — it is a biological fact."
• "Wikipedia is about FACTS not gay-lobby propaganda."
• "Why not use "it" until gender has been legally established?"
• "What would you do if s/he self-identified as a dog, cat, broomstick, or banana then? Self-identification is not the same as legal identity"
• "If I wake up in the morning and decide I am a woman, it doesn't make it so. This absolutely reeks of political correctness."
• "This dude is named Bradley Manning until officially recognized by the courts. Chelsea is what we would call a nickname."

This is just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to anti-transgender editing on Wikipedia. Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Sexology allowed a tendentious fringe theorist who subscribes to the theory that lesbian trans women are men who are attracted to the thought of themselves as woman to continue editing. This is an encyclopedia which has had similar problems before, on Chaz Bono and Laura Jane Grace. We desperately need to do something about it, as the net result will drive prospective trans editors off. Sceptre ^(talk) 02:37, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

(ec) I can't defend every quote, but bear in mind that I was astonished to see people saying that our policy is to change the entire article, beginning to end, to reference "she" in every regard, even using "sister" in descriptions of early childhood. If we are to be enlightened and not transphobic, we should respect there may be people who choose to change genders a couple of times every month. But would that respect extend to rewriting their Wikipedia articles, beginning to end, each time? There is a principle here, opposed to "WP:Recentism", that a fact that is true, or a historical perspective that is accurate, should continue to be so in the future. Wnt (talk) 07:06, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

I'd like to see an example or three before thinking this apparent hypothetical was in fact likely to be a serious problem - David Gerard (talk) 07:36, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Right at the beginning of Wendy Carlos there is a passage which uses "she" in reference to that person's early childhood. Mangoe (talk) 13:58, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

I think David was talking about examples of "people who choose to change genders a couple of times every month". Diego Moya (talk) 22:56, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Almost every comment of user User:Baseball Bugs on Talk:Chelsea Manning is blatant example of intentional and disruptive trolling.--В и к и T 07:44, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

It really has been. Practically every comment he's made there (and in several other places where there are discussions going on) has been incredibly offensive. Silverseren^C 08:26, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Some of these comments are quite funny when presented in an appropriate way (which he often doesn't). With a bit more work User:Baseball Bugs could become our resident Comedian. Count Iblis (talk) 12:32, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

The project is not a practice field for comedian want a bees. We don't want or need a freaking resident comedian. Wasn't Bugs banned from ANI for his constant jokes and commentary? He has been doing this crap for years. If you want a good laugh, go to a comedy club, this isn't that. --Malerooster (talk) 13:31, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

You are right, but we could use a bit more fun. The problem is fundamentally caused by BB presenting his comments in a way that makes people to take them seriously when they shouldn't (i.e. even if Wikipedia had different rules that would allow people making jokes at AN/I, BB's behavior would still be a problem). Count Iblis (talk) 15:08, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

If you want more fun, you could say Julian Assange has a reputation for meeting "new young girls" (just kidding), but BB's many jokes at wp:ANI were more like wp:DE disruptive editing of a talk-page, as too much distraction. -Wikid77 23:33, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

• The thing is, Wikipedia:Article titles trumps a style guide or a particular wikiproject's desires. We can certainly make mention in the article that "Bradley Manning" wishes to be a girl and wants to be addressed as "Chelsea", as it is quite the notable topic. But being notable for wanting to be a girl doesn't actually make it so, and it sure as hell should not have led to a knee-jerk page move and a find-and-replace of "he" to "she" throughout the article. That's not reality; that's activism. Tarc (talk) 12:38, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

I support the move and change, but having said that it's worth acknowledging that "transphobia" (which clearly present in some comments, sadly) isn't the only possible grounds for opposing the change, or opposing some particular details of the change. By the nature of our language, it's tricky to figure out how to correctly refer to someone who identifies as female now, but who identified as male at the time of notable activity. That's just a hard editorial problem, and no cause for high levels of emotion.

As a supporter of the move, I'll also note that it is interesting, and not in a good way, that this move was accomplished almost immediately while other 'name' issues are resolved incorrectly for great lengths of time. We ought to very strongly defer to how people identify themselves, but for various pedantic reasons, some editors insist on calling people by names that they very strongly reject. I consider that a BLP issue of some seriousness.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 13:33, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

I appreciate, Jimmy, that you recognize that disagreeing with someone is not enough to slap labels on them such as "transphobic." I have my reservations with the change, especially its speed, but if Manning keeps the identity long enough, it will probably lose its controversial nature. However, the discussion was/is valid because of conflicting policies.Thelmadatter (talk) 13:42, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Has the name change been done legally? I can't see how we can change the name if it isn't done in an official capacity off Wikipedia.--MONGO 14:22, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

No it hasn't, but that's irrelevant - Wikipedia uses the WP:COMMONNAME, not the legal name. See, for example, Cat Stevens or Peter Sutcliffe. GiantSnowman 14:30, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

There's clearly a discrepancy between WP:COMMONNAME and MOS:IDENTITY in this case, which should probably be looked at when all this has died down. I suppose you could meet both by having the article at Bradley Manning, including that they self-identify as Chelsea Manning, and using female pronouns. Black Kite (talk) 14:38, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

@Black Kite - re "WP:COMMONNAME and MOS:IDENTITY" - Just as a point of order, I think MOS:IDENT says we should use the pronoun "she" if that's what the subject wants. I don't think MOS:IDENT says we have to change the article title. NickCT (talk) 16:40, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

It should be noted that editor Sceptic was blocked (apparently for 12 hours) for making the post that opened this thread, and that there is discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Request_for_lift_of_topic_ban. I had the impression that posts like this, here, are sort of protected speech (and said so, there). Not meaning to change the topic of this discussion / comments about the topic ban should be made at the wp:AN thread. --doncram 14:48, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Jimbo, as the person who made the move request back to Bradley Manning so a proper discussion and consensus could ensue, I am frustrated you assume requests such as mine were made for "various pedantic reasons." Policy is absolutely essential; it is not "pedantic." The controversial move to Chelsea, with which many people disagreed for various reasons (some transphobic but many policy-based; personally I support the ultimate move to Chelsea so as to respect her wishes) was a clear violation of the need to seek consensus before making a controversial move. If you think a call to follow policy on controversial moves is "pedantic" that would make most of our other policies "pedantic" as well. We do not have the luxury of picking and choosing when to apply our policies and to what extent. Controversial move request need to be discussed, period. CaseyPenk (talk) 15:42, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

To clarify, Jimbo's statement supporting the move seems to be supporting the return of the article to "Bradley", from "Chelsea", where it had been moved. Maybe everyone understood this. --doncram 14:53, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Only for values of "seems" that are very similar to "can be misread as". --Stephan Schulz (talk) 15:08, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Okay i guess i was completely wrong. There is a current RM ongoing, but I gather now that Jimbo's statement about "I support the move and change" was about the previous move from Bradley to Chelsea. Sorry for my confusion. --doncram 16:03, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

No worries! I highly commend you for being one of the few (the only?) persons in this mess who changes his or her opinion based on facts ;-). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:44, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

• Your confusion is understandable because of the obtuse way a few admins handled the situation. The irony is that we should have had this kind of deliberate and thorough discussion the first time -- before a few admins took it in their hands to make the move despite overwhelming evidence that it would be controversial. I wish we didn't have to parse this situation after the fact. CaseyPenk (talk) 16:09, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Only focussing on official name changes is problematic. It would mean that while we have to move Shaparova to Sugarpova during the US open if the Florida Supreme Court gives the green light for that, we can't call Manning the way she wants herself to be called. Count Iblis (talk) 15:00, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Just to throw in my two cents here, this issue has got too hopeless wrapped up in the "trans" debate for anyone to think rationally about it. My feeling is that we should try our best to treat trans BLPs exactly the same as we treat every darn other BLP. We should be careful not to give less deference to Manning than we normally would, but we should also be careful not to give him any more deference than usual. WP:COMMONNAME strikes me as the obvious policy to follow here. The core principle surrounding WP:V is that my opinion about what Manning should be called does not matter. Neither does Jimbo's or anyone else's. All that matters is what the sources are calling Manning. WP should try to reflect the majority of verifiable reliable sources (period). If that ends up "offending" anybody, tough cookies. That's life. NickCT (talk) 16:51, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

NickCT, while I'm very much sympathetic with the notion that what I/we (personally, as a matter of personal ethics) think someone should be called isn't a primary determinant, I think the issue is more complex than the simplistic mantras that often surround WP:V. One of the many reasons that I, and others, campaigned against the simple formulation of "verifiability, not truth" is that very often real editorial judgment calls have to be made by us, when the sources are unclear or in flux. While of course it is important to take into consideration that Wikipedia is not a crystal ball it seems very likely that for the next few weeks there will be confusion and conflict in reliable sources. My guess is that some more socially conservative reliable sources may well refuse to ever recognize the name change, and some more socially liberal ones will recognize it and carry it into force completely with immediate effect. Our article should in some useful fashion convey to the reader the full context of that state of affairs, but ultimately by the design of the software, the article has to ultimately be at one particular name, with the other made into a redirect. When do we make the change? That's a judgment call where WP:V is going to offer very very little guidance.

Here's my ultimate philosophical point - we deliberately constrain ourselves to some extent with policies like WP:V. But we can also WP:IAR when in our thoughtful editorial judgment it is wise to do so. Since WP:V is going to give little guidance for the next couple of weeks, we can and should and must make a judgment (which may well end up mistaken) about how things will shake out. I think in six months time the vast majority of RS will call him Chelsea, which is why I support the change.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 17:06, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Mr. Wales, Sir. Very much appreciate the response. The care, consideration and personal attention you pay to these matters is a light and inspiration to us all.

re "I think in six months time the vast majority of RS will call him Chelsea" - I think you might very well be correct. So why not change the name to Chelsea in six months time? Changing it now just makes it look like WP is soapboxing.

You must forgive me sir, but I think at the end of the day, I am a "verifiability, not truth"er. Despite that, I am, and will remain, your most humble and obedient servant, NickCT (talk) 18:49, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

"One of the many reasons that I, and others, campaigned against the simple formulation of "verifiability, not truth" is that very often real editorial judgment calls have to be made by us, when the sources are unclear or in flux." I hadn't thought of it in these terms, but very much like we have an "ignore the rules if it improves the article" guideline, we changed WP:V for the very reason that it had been suggesting that truth is not important. Some things can only be verified through the subject themselves and we cannot be so wrapped up in our own policies, guidelines and procedures that we forget the fact that not all information that is accurate will be found documented in reliable sources, especially BLP information. The old way of thinking had always been: "If it isn't in a reliable source it cannot be mentioned". That is simply no longer the case and I'm not even sure if it was really ever the case. Some information should ignore the documentation, especially if the documentation is wrong. And we know documentation is wrong very often or just missing/destroyed. If we have an outright statement from the subject that we know is them, yes, we should add the information. Also, Baseball Bugs should reign in the humor if it is getting offensive to other editors. No offense to BB, but he shouldn't let all these discussion of this topic make them become insensitive to others. I know BB does not do anything intentionally. At least in discussions of this topic in the past, they have never demonstrated a clear lack of civility of the issue.--Mark 18:58, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

As a supporter of the move, I'll also note that it is interesting, and not in a good way, that this move was accomplished almost immediately while other 'name' issues are resolved incorrectly for great lengths of time. This is, unfortunately, a systemic problem and has little to do with transsexuals in particular. Often the easiest way to win an argument is to have a couple of dedicated editors ready to make the change and to prevent anyone from rolling it back. Ken Arromdee (talk) 19:45, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Probably the underlying problem is that WP intends to be an encyclopaedia (timeless), but it is written at the pace of a newspaper (on the hour). Yes, in six months, or a year, or a couple weeks, it will be clear whether it should be "him", "her", or a given mix of both; in the mean time it is likely that mast amounts of energy will be spent (wasted?) discussing it... I have no idea for a reasonable and widely acceptable solution, though, and maybe many don't even agree there is a problem there. - Nabla (talk) 00:02, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Google News often links to Wikipedia articles, so we have been promoted to a real news site. Count Iblis (talk) 00:36, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Another news site linking to us does not make us a news site. I can't wait for someone like Colbert to take advantage of this fiasco. What a joke. --Onorem (talk) 00:59, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Iblis, your suggestion that they link here out of a sense of journalistic recognition is either subtle sarcasm or charmingly naive. Google News links to the Wikipedia due to a much-documented close business relationship. Tarc (talk) 01:20, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Tarc, I wonder if you might clarify your remark here. You seem to be suggesting, although I may well be misunderstanding you, that Google News links to Wikipedia due to a business relationship between Google and Wikipedia - although there is absolutely no business relationship between Google and Wikipedia that led to their decision to link to us from Google News. You give a link, as if to substantiate the claim, but the link appears to perhaps be an accidental cut/paste error, as it has nothing to do with the matter at all.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 19:44, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

• The idea that being accused of bigotry is worse than the bigotry itself isn't a new thing. Certainly, British editors will remember the Julie Bindel saga back in January, where she made horrifically transphobic comments in The Observer in response to her friend Suzanne Moore being criticised for LGBT activists for prejudiced language in one of her columns. It all comes down to the idea of privilege, really; as the majority of editors are white, male, straight, cisgender, etc, they have a privilege to look at things in this sort of dispassionate, by-the-book discussion that other people on this Earth don't have; indeed, that's why CSB exists in the first place. It's easier to leave your points of view at the door when the opposite point of view isn't "morally mandate them out of existence".

  Indeed, the simultaneous proposed topic bans of Baseball Bugs and Josh Gorand are very worrying. On one hand, Baseball Bugs made statements that were almost certainly intended to provoke anger and, yes, were transphobic (there's no other way to see calling a trans person "it"). He seems to be about to let off the hook for this behaviour. On the other hand, Josh has been pointing out transphobic commentary on the talk page (the mandatory worship of COMMONNAME aside, there is a lot of resistance to the idea of gendering Manning correctly in article text too) and is facing a topic ban for it. We're even seeing Morwen (talk · contribs) receiving threats of blackmail from (since-banned) editors, and David Gerard (talk · contribs) is probably getting similar harassment. The end result is that it is creating a very hostile and unwelcoming environment for trans editors, and is definitely against the Foundation's aims. Sceptre ^(talk) 08:53, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Julie Bindel's comments have a rationale to them, and I don't think Wikipedians should be expected to all be to the left of a lesbian rights activist on the issue. Doctors may agree that trans surgeries are a necessary and useful intervention, but medical ethics is strictly synonymous with profit. Why can't the same emotional end be accomplished through simple societal recognition of a third sex? Why are trans surgeries highest in Iran, and what would the doctors say about their necessity? There is definitely a need for society to retain its skeptics of the need for cosmetic surgeries. If there is a sense of privilege here, there are a lot of people who feel that it also extends to prisoners who sue for extensive surgeries; of course, if the U.S. had universal health coverage much of that resentment would be removed, and if wishes were horses... Wnt (talk) 13:11, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

FYI: it was actually Julie Burchill, not Julie Bindel, who wrote the controversial Observer article User:Sceptre refers to. An understandable mistake (both are British feminist writers, with the same first name, who have both at times been accused of transphobia), but let's try to avoid violating BLP on Jimbo's talk page. Robofish (talk) 01:53, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

• OP was blocked again, for 60 hours: Unfortunately, the OP of this thread, User:Sceptre (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) has been blocked again for "topic ban violation" (this time by User:Future_Perfect_at_Sunrise: dif526) and not able to reply directly here for 60 hours (~3 days) from "09:17, 24 August 2013‎". However, comments can be read at bottom of User_talk:Sceptre. Dozens of users are discussing the issues at "wp:AN#Request for lift of topic ban" and Talk:Chelsea_Manning. -Wikid77 14:05, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Jimbo, I don't think your judgement on this article-title issue is reliable and I'll explain why.

You wrote, "We ought to very strongly defer to how people identify themselves, but for various pedantic reasons, some editors insist on calling people by names that they very strongly reject. — With the use of the term "pedantic" you have unfairly stereotyped those who disagree with you.

You wrote, "I think in six months time the vast majority of RS will call him Chelsea, which is why I support the change. — You are basing your judgement on speculation instead of facts.

But hey, this just demonstrates that when it comes to discussions like this, you are just another Wikipedia editor with regard to personal strengths and weaknesses. --Bob K31416 (talk) 15:02, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes, of course I am. But I do think you're missing my key point. Either choice is completely speculative at this point in time. There is no way, today, to settle the issue definitively by simply pointing to "what reliable sources say" - they say different things, and are likely to continue to do so for some time. If someone said "I think in six months time the vast majority of RS will call her Bradley" that'd be equally as speculative. (And, I think, false, given a look at the history of such things.)--Jimbo Wales (talk) 15:05, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Re "Either choice is completely speculative at this point in time." — There is no speculation that the vast majority of sources have used the name Bradley Manning. There is only speculation that the vast majority of sources will be using Chelsea Manning six months from now. --Bob K31416 (talk) 15:12, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

The vast majority of sources throughout all of history say that Pluto is a planet. The moment a celebrity dies, the vast majority of sources will say that the person is alive. The day a famous person (usually, a woman) changes her name due to marriage, the vast majority of sources will give her previous name. The point is that when something new happens, we update Wikipedia. We often have to make judgment calls about that.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 15:24, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Admittedly, that's a really persuasive point about the married name -- but (even if there is a ring of higher truth to it) we don't write that the celebrity's parents gave birth to a corpse. Wnt (talk) 15:33, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm just curious, because the pronoun shift is different from a name change in some important ways, so I don't think this proves anyone definitively one way or the other. How do we usually refer to women during the time in their life when they went by their maiden name? Here's one example: Margaret Thatcher in which we refer to her as 'Roberts' several times. Does this provide us with any guidance as to whether we ought to refer to Manning as 'he' when talking about a period in his life when he identified as male, and 'she' when talking about the present day? (Addendum: as a counter-example, I note we refer to Cheryl Cole as 'Cole' when she was 4 years old - even though Cole was not a name she or her parents would have recognized at that time.)--Jimbo Wales (talk) 16:14, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

That is an excellent point, because I think the Manning article, now with "she", needs to specify Manning was in the U.S. Army as a man, lest people imagine military service as a woman. This issue is akin to not omitting facts which would lead people to "original conclusions" (as in non-true conclusion of woman in army). -Wikid77 16:59, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

We change sentences about the person from the present tense to the past, though. Diego Moya (talk) 16:10, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Jimbo, Re "The point is that when something new happens, we update Wikipedia." — When Manning expressed the desire to be called Chelsea, this new info was included in the article, presumably without dispute. But regarding the title, the new thing to happen would need to be a change to a prevalent use of Chelsea instead of Bradley in the sources that have come out since the announcement, which I don't think has happened so far. --Bob K31416 (talk) 16:53, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

I think it has. But in any event, time will tell.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 17:00, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

The UK press shifted entirely over in mere hours after the announcement, the US press has been shifting at an increasing rate over the past few days - David Gerard (talk) 17:02, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Jimbo, Re "I think it has. " — To find out, you can google Bradley Manning, and then google Chelsea Manning, and see for yourself. --Bob K31416 (talk) 17:22, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Making google searches does not prove anything and using these search results is a bad way of building an encyclopedia. There is overhwelming evidence that many reliable sources are using Chelsea so it is already a common usage term, we dont need google to tell us this. Thanks, ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 21:32, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

The googling was just to find current articles to read to see how they use the two names. I suggested separate searches using each name to avoid any keyword-related bias in the result. --Bob K31416 (talk) 03:00, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Subject to some natural caveats, I don't agree with Squeakbox. A naive and blind use of Google search counts is a bad idea, of course. But it can be a useful first tool for understanding the preponderance of the evidence. And a quick look at the relevant Google search (i.e. Google news) shows that I'm absolutely right. The vast majority of sources are using "Chelsea" in the headlines. --Jimbo Wales (talk) 08:05, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Well, I did a google news search here in Australia, just searching for "Manning". Of the top ten results, two articles had "Bradley" in the headline ([1][2]) and two had "Chelsea" ([3][4]). StAnselm (talk) 08:30, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

One teeny problem -- the "name qua name" is the topic of many articles - and that is not proof that the newspaper style guide now says to use that name -- vide the NYT [5] which carefully uses "Bradley" and "he" in its most recent article. "Google counts" which include articles primarily about the name are not sufficient to make much of a case for anything. As Wikipedia is not a tabloid, and there is no deadline, I suggest that the NYT be considered as a reputable MOS guide here. Collect (talk) 11:59, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

I went to the google news site after reading Jimbo's message but I didn't see how to search just google news and not google in general, and I didn't know what keywords Jimbo used. In any case, Jimbo's criteria of "using 'Chelsea' in the headlines" is not useful because it includes cases where both Bradley and Chelsea are in the same headline and does not exclude cases where Manning is referred to as Bradley in the text of the article. The correct criterion for this discussion is how Manning is referred to in the text of the article, Chelsea or Bradley.

I also went to repeat the search that StAnselm did, but in the process I found an interesting article from The Christian Science Monitor (CSM) about how the media was affected. Here's an excerpt about Wikipedia from that CSM article.[6]

For now, at least, and until instructed otherwise by my editors, I’ll do what that source of all undergraduate wisdom – Wikipedia – has done: Refer to Manning as female.

Ms. Manning had barely finished his – oops, her – announcement last week when Wikipedia immediately redirected “Bradley Manning” searches to “Chelsea Manning” in an article peppered with feminine pronouns. One example:

“She was sentenced to 35 years in prison and dishonorably discharged. She will be eligible for parole after serving one third of her sentence, and together with credits for time served and good behavior could be released eight years after sentencing.”

It’s not been so quick or easy for others in the media, where what to call Manning is being hotly debated.

From what I've seen at the Wikipedia article, the issue is being hotly debated in Wikipedia too but the change in the title did not come from a consensus from the debate, but instead was the result of aggressive editing and maneuvering. --Bob K31416 (talk) 12:06, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Gotta say, I'm not a particularly big fan of the sarcasm used in that article. Nor the way the post above seems to have some things a bit...tilted. Was the media really "effected" or was a single reporter from one source just agreeing with us...one that just happens to be one of, if not the top story coming up in Google news.

When you make a Google search there is an option below to choose "news". Just click it after you hit search. Bradley Manning Google News [7]. Chelsea manning google news [8].

Also, no this was not just something that popped up last week. This is an issue that has been simmering now for a month or two, at least. The decision was not a consensus edit. It was a bold edit. We still form consensus on Wikipedia through actual editing as well as discussion. It isn't a sin. I do resent the implication that editors who support this change have done so with "aggressive editing and maneuvering". No, they didn't. It got changed because it was finally confirmed to be accurate and real. Now that the bold edit has been made the community must decide if that is the right editorial judgment. I think it is. Strongly.--Mark Miller (talk) 12:33, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Re "The decision was not a consensus edit. It was a bold edit." — It was a series of edits that restored the move to Chelsea Manning after it was reverted twice.[9][10][11][12][13] The series of edits occurred over just 2 hours. --Bob K31416 (talk) 02:00, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

I just noticed that the first revert was an error according to the reverting editor. So it wasn't the situation that I had thought. Sorry about that. --Bob K31416 (talk) 02:27, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

However, the second revert back to Bradley Manning was not an error according to that reverting administrator. Since Bradley Manning had been the stable article title, I don't think it should have been reverted back to Chelsea Manning without consensus. I think that the following two talk page messages succinctly convey each administrator's view at the time.[14]

Regarding revert to Chelsea Manning, which was final revert:

"Reverted move per WP:BLP. Note that BLP considerations override pretty much everything except the fundamental content policies and are absolutely what admin powers are for - David Gerard (talk) 14:35, 22 August 2013 (UTC)"

Regarding revert to Bradley Manning, which was just before the final revert to Chelsea Manning:

"How on Earth is it a BLP violation to refer to someone by their legal name in an article title? -- tariqabjotu 14:39, 22 August 2013 (UTC)"

--Bob K31416 (talk) 10:57, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

The talk page for the MOS has this very problematic comment by the administrator Toddst1 (talk · contribs):

*Oppose: If I decided to declare my gender as vegetable it wouldn't make it true nor would reporting such here be encyclopedic. Toddst1 (talk) 18:16, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Is this conduct, which arguably breaks the Foundation's NDP, what we should expect or even tolerate from a sysop? Sceptre ^(talk) 12:07, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

For reference, I think that this is the Foundation's NDP that Sceptre is referring to.[15]

"The Wikimedia Foundation prohibits discrimination against current or prospective users and employees on the basis of race, color, gender, religion, national origin, age, disability, sexual orientation, or any other legally protected characteristics. The Wikimedia Foundation commits to the principle of equal opportunity, especially in all aspects of employee relations, including employment, salary administration, employee development, promotion, and transfer."

--Bob K31416 (talk) 12:36, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Sceptre, Re your comment "which arguably breaks the Foundation's NDP" — Would you care to explain? Thanks. --Bob K31416 (talk) 12:46, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

• Gender identity is explicitly legally protected in California, and implicitly protected federally as gender-based discrimination (Macy v. Holder). Todd's comments are clearly discriminatory speech against transgender persons, of which current and prospective users are a subset. Sceptre ^(talk) 13:06, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Sceptre, In your response, I didn't see anything about how the Foundation's NDP quoted above applies to Todd's comment.

Jimbo, If you're following any of this, feel free to jump in if you would like to add anything regarding the Foundation's NDP and whether it applies to Todd's comment. --Bob K31416 (talk) 13:43, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Sceptre, It looks like Macy v. Holder has to do with discrimination in hiring.[16] So it doesn't apply to Todd's remark. Since you weren't specific about what California laws you were referring to, it's difficult for me to address that remark. I think that laws which limit freedom of speech are very narrow, and I expect they don't apply to Todd's remark. Perhaps a calm dialogue with your fellow Wikipedia editor on his Talk page might help you understand each other better. --Bob K31416 (talk) 14:02, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Sceptre, Regarding understanding each other, I think that what you object to in Todd's remark is that it sounds to you like a joke about something that is too serious to joke about. Is that about it? --Bob K31416 (talk) 14:36, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

It's a clearly discriminatory remark, and I don't see how anyone can interpret it otherwise. When statements such as these are made by administrators, they bring disrepute to the project, and a Foundation that prides itself on equal opportunity. What do you think would happen in a different California company if a supervisor said what Toddst1 said to a trans employee they supervise? Sceptre ^(talk) 08:12, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Not everyone has the same ...if not morality, perhaps the term scruples could be used, in determining a slight against another, but most clear thinking people understand mockery. We see it often enough here to recognize it. When you fight for equality, sometimes you have to be a part of a community whether they like it or not but you don't have to be in battle mode on Wikipedia. We all have different backgrounds, experiences and a unique understanding of the world. You can further a cause by helping build encyclopedic value or you can try to set it back by comparing it to an unthinking food item. I think that some people will never see the seriousness of the subject and if they don't want to be serious they probably wont be counted. Did Toddst1 say this as part of his administrative duties or actions, or was this something said while just contributing as an editor? I don't think its going unnoticed. But we still have to accept each other and some of the things we will have to accept is that not everyone will understand us, not every one will agree with us and not everyone will take us seriously. LGBT issues are not even easy for those within the community and part of the history is that the "t" in LGBT was added. It used to be LGB. I think the 'b" was even added. Everything takes time, but here we are. Talking about the name change of an LGBT person. And when I remember how it was when even mentioning gay rights was shocking and gay marriage.....almost a laughable a dream. Things take time, but they do change.--Mark Miller (talk) 08:55, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Administrators are, theoretically, held to a higher standard than regular editors as their possession of administrative tools (rightly or wrongly) confers authority upon them. See also User:Bedford, whose sexist comments regarding main page comments were seen as enough to revoke his administrator tools (although, I understand, that was five years ago). Sceptre ^(talk) 08:19, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Comparisons to famous name changes

The most-obvious example I remembered was the name change of world-famous boxer Cassius Clay, as a rising star in the sports world, and then Clay defeated Sonny Liston in a major upset, so the "whole world" then knew the name "Cassius Clay" was the greatest boxer of the time, at a time when boxing was not widely considered such a "politically questionable" violent sport. Then Clay joined the Nation of Islam, and changed his name to "Muhammad Ali" and to my shock, within weeks, the "whole world" started continually referring to Clay as "Ali", I mean it was like the world just did not understand he was the great "Cassius Clay" and everyone kept saying "Ali" (or for a short while some added "formerly Clay"). Hence, it is important to understand the way the world has really worked during the past 50 years, and remember how a famous person who changes names for a crucial reason is almost instantly renamed in reporting future famous events. Perhaps the key issues are the public announcement of the name change, plus the impact of the underlying reasons. And the world media immediately responds. It is amazing how quickly people around the world can react, learn and adapt. Update: Even though polite TV might have accepted "Ali" there is a report that other reporters and TV commentators "openly mocked his new name, treating it as a bizarre affectation" which perhaps was not broadcast as much (see: Salon.com, "What's in a name? Chelsea Manning and Muhammad Ali", Aug. 24, 2013), and Clay had secretly become a member of the Nation of Islam before the Liston fight, but promoters suppressed the story, and Clay did not announce name "Ali" until after he won the fight. Hence, the behind-the-scenes bickering might have been similar, with the Times deciding to use historic name "Cassius Clay" as tied to pre-Ali notability. There were related issues of racism or fear about Black Muslim activities. -Wikid77 16:59, 25 August, 10:17, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

So why does Wikipedia still have an article on Cat Stevens, who hasn't used that name for 35 years? Mogism (talk) 17:02, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

It seems Yusuf still mentions his former name "Cat Stevens" (see website YusufIslam.com), and perhaps his views of Allah encourage use of both names. See: Talk:Cat_Stevens to discuss use of both names in recent sources. -Wikid77 00:34, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

You're both right, and you're both wrong. WP:COMMONNAME already has it covered. Muhammad Ali is the most common name for Cassius Clay and Cat Stevens is the most common name for Yusuf. There is no need to argue or change policy. WP:COMMONNAME is already correct. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:30, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Ferdinand Lewis Alcindor comes to mind as well. Albacore (talk) 17:36, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Not a direct comparison, though. The majority of Kareem Abdul-Jabbar's notable achievements were under that name, the majority of Margaret Thatcher's achievements were as Margaret Thatcher, not Margaret Roberts or Baroness Grantham, and Talk:Cat Stevens is full of explanations that the page hasn't been moved as most of his notable activity was under that name. Everything for which Manning is notable was done under the name Bradley. While I personally agree that Wikipedia should respect the subject's wishes and use whatever name they want to be known by, we should at least admit that Cat Stevens, Alan Sugar and hundreds of other pages are at "subject's former name" on the grounds that that is the name by which their most notable activity took place, even though that's not the name the subject currently goes by. Mogism (talk) 17:45, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Not so, Manning is unquestionably notable for her statement that she is now a female called Chelsea, indeed that is arguably the most notable thing this notable human being has done. Thanks, ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 18:36, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Seriously? You think the primary reason for her being notable is her gender identity? I don't just find that ridiculous, I find it insulting that you appear to be saying that people with gender identity issues are so unusual that they're automatically of public interest. (I really can't see any other way to parse your comment.) Mogism (talk) 18:43, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

I didnt say it was the primary reason for her being notable, that was clearly the wikileaks episode, I said it was the most notable (just as Gary Glitter was primarily notable as a pop star but the most notable things he has done are his pedophile activities). Are you claiming Chelsea's recent statement isnt notable? In which case why are you here discussing it at all?. Thanks, ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 18:50, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

No, nobody would care that Manning considers themselves female if it wasn't for the security breach. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 05:18, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

The term "transphobic" should not be used in these discussions, in my opinion. A phobia is a mental illness, an irrational fear. It is uncivil name-calling and an attempt to shut down discussion by applying a label to those who do not agree with you. I don't see all of those comments at the start of this thread as being evidence of a phobia, some of them are just discussing the question from a different point of view than the OP.Smeat75 (talk) 20:02, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

See etymological fallacy. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:04, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

As our article puts it, "usually these kinds of "phobias" are described as fear, dislike, disapproval, prejudice, hatred, discrimination, or hostility towards the object of the 'phobia'." It's not a nice thing to say, regardless of whether the etymology is accurate. 71.231.186.92 (talk) 04:31, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

I formerly thought the word was a "-phobia" mental condition, but it has been defined as a "strong dislike" or use of discrimination, as a statement of fact rather than a direct personal insult, or an attempt to ascribe a medical diagnosis to another user. Comparisons to mental phobias are a source of conflicts, as someone imagines being called crazy, rather than stating a dislike of transgender. -Wikid77 10:17, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

.......or a polemic structure used in an effort to capture the moral high ground and to shift the focus of debate in a politically advantageous manner. It's a way to demean those with whom one disagrees. Carrite (talk) 15:33, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

It's usually apparent from context whether it's meant as a dispassionate description or as an accusation intended to attack another editor. There's no reason to block editors for years, even just an hour block would send the clear message "this is not acceptable behavior." As was stated on the AN/I thread, the warnings were openly ignored. The users violating WP:CIVIL were proud that they'd been arrogant and combative and believed it was appropriate behavior. The message that was sent was that incivility is welcome and accepted on Wikipedia, and that isn't what we were supposed to be doing. 71.231.186.92 (talk) 14:27, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Well, attempts to censor people in mid-debate, such as discussing transgender issues, are likely to escalate similar comments, rather than defusing them. Perhaps it would be good for Wikipedia to have some terminology forums, to shift the hostile debate into other pages, to allow the original issue to be decided without meta-debating the proper use of dictionary words "transphobia" or "transphobic". -Wikid77 00:34, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

People can discuss why it's offensive without labeling other editors as bigoted (which is the most likely understanding of the word). The seven dirty words are all in the dictionary, and that does not make them acceptable for use on TV. Transphobic is widely interpreted as an accusation of bigotry, and that's a personal attack, an argument ad hominem, and has no place in a civil debate, especially one where the personal opinions of the editors are supposed to be marginally relevant at best. The hostile debate should not be shifted into other pages, it should be shifted off Wikipedia - this is not a forum and not a battleground. If it's not about the article, it should be removed with extreme prejudice and the editor should shortly follow if they have no intention of talking about articles. 71.231.186.92 (talk) 03:41, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

I raised this point recently; my position was that we should reflect name changes to be current for BLP name titles just as we do for landmarks like Sears Tower. (Would those citing COMMONNAME argue that these landmarks be moved back to their longest-held or "most famous" former names?) Famous names like Cat Stevens might be worth having as a separate article about an artist's persona, but generally not. The problem is, right now half the article about "Cat Stevens" is about stuff he's done as Yusuf Islam. Even if all the sources make sure to say that he is the artist once known as Cat Stevens, that's not actually the same thing as saying he is Cat Stevens; it's a service to the reader which we would do even if the article is under the other name. Wnt (talk) 02:32, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm hoping our readers are smart enough to understand that he changed his name and that we put the article under the more recognizable name. It's just some words at the top of a page, it's not a big deal. I suppose it's a big deal if you're trying to control a conversation but I'm assuming that most editors don't have any nefarious agenda, they're just getting caught up in a WP:BIKESHED situation where there isn't an obvious answer and it's just opinion vs. opinion. 71.231.186.92 (talk) 23:43, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

NYT/AP switch to Chelsea

Now 4 days later, "New York Times to Call Chelsea Manning by Her Preferred Name" at Huffingtonpost.com, 26 August 2013. There have been reports that the New York Times (NYT) refused to use the name "Muhammad Ali" when world-famous boxer Cassius Clay changed his name after 1964. Also, Associated Press (AP) has announced intent to use "Chelsea" and will immediately affect hundreds/thousands of sources, as news feed to influence each newspaper or broadcaster (within days, the vast majority of recent sources will have: Chelsea). Keeping the WP title as "Chelsea Manning" allows that to appear in "Category:Transgender and transsexual women" as a female name. The first 7 other-language wikipedias which also renamed, for title with Chelsea, are: Swedish Wikipedia, Persian Wikipedia, Turkish WP, Dutch WP, Danish WP, Catalan WP and Finnish Wikipedia, all renamed on 22/23 August 2013. -Wikid77 06:44, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Voting on whether we recognise a transgendered person's gender transition

I find it extremely problematic that we need to have a vote on whether we recognise a transgendered person's gender transition, especially when it results in debates riddled with degrading commentary eg. comparing transgendered people to dogs and other commentary that the outside world would largely consider to be hate speech on the talk page of the biography.

As far as I'm aware, Wikipedia contains one single article that is titled using a name that the subject of that BLP explicitly does not identify with, and has explicitly, in clear terms asked not to be used. Whereas other articles are always moved instantly when they announce they want to be known under a different name or title (eg. Kate Middleton to "Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge").

I find the name and gender identity of a transgendered person, when there is no reason to doubt the person's transition, is primarily a matter of factual accuracy, that needs to be reported accurately in order to comply with BLP (regardless of the fact that the transition was widely reported and accepted by the media[17]). In the outside world, deliberately misgendering a transgendered person, using a male name that the person has requested not be used in this case, is generally considered a form of violence against that person. I believe Wikipedia urgently needs better procedures to ensure that transgendered people are treated in accordance with the spirit of BLP and NPOV. What do you think? Josh Gorand (talk) 13:06, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Josh, you really aren't doing your case any favours with statements like that. A significant part of the 'real world' (quite possibly the majority) clearly has difficulties accepting transgendered people, and is highly unlikely to 'generally' consider misgendering a form of 'violence'. Mostly because that isn't what the word 'violence' means. I suggest you cut out the hyperbole, and stick to the facts - which seem to be that an increasing proportion of the mass media are recognising Manning's preferred identity. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:21, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

It's not hyperbole, it's the mainstream opinion in this part of the world (western Europe) and probably in most developed countries at the very least. Numerous scholarly and other sources can be found for this. This discussion was specifically about the broader problem of even voting on someone's gender identity. "Difficulties accepting transgendered people" is not something Wikipedia should take into consideration, just like "difficulties accepting gay people", "difficulties accepting black people" and so forth. Josh Gorand (talk) 13:26, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Josh, seriously. I don't think there's any significant portion of the population in Western Europe who would argue that calling Manning by the wrong name is a violent act. That's just wrong.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 13:28, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Other than a vote (or, more properly a !vote) what do you recommend? I think that in general better decisions are made in a spirit of open and thoughtful dialogue rather than top-down decree. I think it worthwhile to separate two issues - the issue of a community decision by consensus (which requires discussion and poll-taking) and hate speech that may emerge as a part of that process. We wouldn't actually improve things if we shut down open discussion, just to stop a few people from being obnoxious. Better to simply stop the few people from being obnoxious by banning them from the discussion, refactoring their comments, or other such measures as appropriate.

On a more personal note, not relating to the discussion within Wikipedia per se, I'd like to suggest that rhetoric that using the name 'Bradley' rather than 'Chelsea' is a "form of violence" against that person is completely false, and it not something that is even remotely "generally considered" to be violence. This is a really important thing to keep clear because wild accusations of violence in the form of using the wrong name tends to undermine genuine concerns about actual violence against transgendered people, or indeed, Reuters reporters and so on (I am making reference here to what Manning is famous for).--Jimbo Wales (talk) 13:26, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Your own Web site defines violence as "the intentional use of . . . power, threatened or actual, against . . . another person . . . which either results in or has a high likelihood of resulting in . . . psychological harm, maldevelopment, or deprivation," Jimbo. But whatever. Wikipedia has zero credibility for good reason.

Jimbo, I think you're actually wrong here. Deliberately using the old name is, like deliberate misgendering, pretty much always a personal attack, and one that comes with a serious threat of implicit violence. As Leveson put it, "The use of 'before' names as well as photographs of the individuals in question not only causes obvious distress but can place them at risk." This is actually a thing and a consideration. Other trans people will also see such behaviour as carrying the implicit threat of violence, by bitter experience of said violence, and make the editing environment feel unsafe. That this is not generally considered to be the case by people of good will is due to being uninformed of trans issues, but try saying that.

I think a lot of the controversy over the move to Chelsea Manning was that people seriously expected the justification of the move and BLP lock to (a) convince them that transgender was even a thing (b) that the issues were actually real. This is, of course, a book-length request. Morwen and I tried, but of course it didn't convince anyone who wasn't already convinced, particularly not people who were deeply insulted at the notion they were merely ignorant of trans issues while they came out with jawdroppingly transphobic statements. In all innocence.

It's a tricky one, but there is, no fooling, a serious problem here - David Gerard (talk) 14:47, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes, there is a serious problem, but again - and we are far outside discussion of Wikipedia policy here and into a more general philosophical discussion, I think it is harmful to stretch from "using the wrong name" (or "using the wrong pronoun") to "serious threat of implicit violence". Why? Because there are serious threats of implicit violence out there that need to be dealt with, there is hate speech out there that needs to be dealt with, and yet a great many people who are saying sensible things (that I don't agree with for multiple reasons) like "Until most reliable sources reflect the name change we should not" risk being tarred with the brush of *actually committing a violent act*. That's what I'm objecting to. Here's another way to put it: if using the wrong name is as bad as committing a violent act, then logically, committing a violent act is no worse than using the wrong name. That just doesn't strike me as a sensible position either philosophically, nor as a practical route to reducing violence and threats of violence.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 15:41, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

I do see what you mean. However, I do maintain the air of implicit violence it carries is real, and a serious problem (not least in fostering a hostile editing environment for trans editors - c.f. the attempted doxxing and attempted off-wiki attacks on Morwen for having dared to move the article in the first place without even use of admin powers) that one should not risk minimising ("that's not really violence per se") - David Gerard (talk) 16:32, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

• The thing is, this person is notorious as "Bradley Manning", for reasons completely unconnected to transgenderism. Lost in the last week are facts of being a convicted criminal, about to serve 35 years at a very harsh military prison for violating the Espionage Act. This person's actions endangered the lives of American servicemen and women as well as our allies and their soldiers, second only to Snowden's alleged (we have to be technical since he hasn't been tried and convicted) transgressions. Bradley Manning is a spy, folks; convicted spies aren't a routine media event. Tarc (talk) 13:42, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
  • And BLP applies to everyone, Tarc. EdChem (talk) 18:48, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
    • I did not say otherwise, and nothing I said above runs afoul of BLP; if you feel otherwise, WP:ANI is the place to go. In the future EdChem, please do not link/ping my name unless you have a specific question; this wasn't worth my time. Tarc (talk) 18:58, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

• The main point here was not the term violence, but that it is commonly deemed to be very offensive and degrading (I could have said that instead), although the term violence can also mean non-physical violence including psychological harm. According to the Transgender Law Center, "it is extremely disrespectful to be called by a pronoun or name one does not chose for oneself. It invalidates ones identity and self-concept. This lack of validation and recognition can and often does lead to depression and suicide."[18] In scholarly contexts, the word violence is employed broadly in the sense I used it above (see eg. [19]) Josh Gorand (talk) 13:47, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

If you say "it is commonly deemed to be very offensive and degrading" then depending on exactly what you mean by 'it' then I don't mind agreeing with. Equating using the wrong name with an act of violence is one step too far.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 15:41, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

By "it", I meant the deliberate use of former names (as primary means of identification), pronouns contrary to the person's expressed gender identification and in some cases unnecessary use of old photographs, per David Gerard above. I in no way meant to compare this sort of thing to physical violence, but the term violence is also used in regard to concepts such as structural violence, psychological violence and so forth in many academic settings, inter alia relating to transgender topics; what I meant in this regard was actions that are deeply hurtful and degrading to and often affecting the well-being and sometimes health of transgendered people. Josh Gorand (talk) 16:15, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Whereas I would compare it to physical violence, because they correlate depressingly often - David Gerard (talk) 16:16, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

I agree many transgendered people would perceive it like that, eg [20]. It is a serious problem that transgendered people feel having a wikipedia biography at all is very ruinous to their lives because of the apparant lack of respect and decency with which they are treated. Josh Gorand (talk) 13:02, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

This para is worth quoting:

Let me be clear, I say violence in the title not to minimize the brutal, physical violence committed against women like Cemia and Islan. Rather, I say violence because our old name are frequently weaponised against us, often as a precursor to physical violence. And the violence of weaponized old names springs from the same disrespect, mockery, and hatred that informs fatal physical violence. These are all connected.

Claiming that "violence" is an inappropriate word to use in discussions of this is simply incorrect - David Gerard (talk) 13:29, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

• • That's really not a concern of this project though, any more than when the community decided that the desire to provide information about Muhammad outweighed the offense to some Muslims by displaying the pictures. Here, the need of the project to keep the Manning article in line with our policies and with a dash of common sense outweighs potential offense by the subject or by actual transgendered people. At the end of the day, places like transgenderlaw.org and the like do not dictate or guide Wikipedia content. Tarc (talk) 13:59, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
    • The policy here is WP: BLP, stating that "Biographies of living persons ("BLP"s) must be written [...] with regard for the subject's privacy", "the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment". Using a masculine name for a person who identifies as female causes harm to that subject of a BLP per above. Josh Gorand (talk) 14:02, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
      • "Using a masculine name for a person who identifies as female causes harm.." is a claim that was rejected by e Wikipedia community. This isn't a debate on whether the person actually in real life feels offended though; people day in and day out are offended by a wide variety of things, but being unoffended is not a right. We have to determine whether the level of harm is sufficient to warrant a WP:BLP invocation; in this case, a consensus of Wikipedia editors felt that it was not. Tarc (talk) 14:17, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
        • Did you consider that maybe, just maybe this is a question you should ask the trans community? Because most of us are saying it is harmful. You're pretty much saying the heavily cisnormative "wikipedia community" should decide on trans issues for us, without input, and fail to see the problem. Our voices are being completely ignored. It is absolutely shameful and revolting behaviour.Little Miss Desu (talk) 12:32, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

It is not part of the wikipedia process to factor in vested interested groups. Wikipedia, as a general principle, bases content decisions on the due weight in reliable sources, IRWolfie- (talk) 23:56, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

• • • • • There was no consensus that this does not cause harm, many people agreed that it did. Josh Gorand (talk) 14:22, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Since nobody has mentioned it so far, the article Wendy Carlos has managed to address this issue without any problems. Some of the early Carlos albums were released under the name of Walter Carlos, which is the name on the birth certificate.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 15:59, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm sure the POV Warriors will be on that momentarily... Carrite (talk) 17:53, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Wendy Carlos isnt a hate figure for some, Manning is (some think she is a US traitor) and I personally am convinced that that has hugely influenced the lamentable RM debate. Thanks, ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 17:58, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Manning is polarizing - there are apparently 100k people who think she deserves a Nobel peace prize, so there's hate and love driving skewed responses. More than anything, it's a WP:NOTDEMOCRACY poster child because people are probably "voting" for reasons that have nothing to do with whether it's appropriate for an encyclopedia. 71.231.186.92 (talk) 18:05, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Interpretation of the BLP policy have evolved over time, and it is disappointing that so many editors fail to recognise how the principles which underlie it apply to transgendered individuals. I am reminded of the changes in interpretation of the US Constitution which was, at one time, seen as consistent with slavery and with equal protection allowing racial and sexual discrimination; now it is clear that the equal protection protection clause will soon be recognised as mandating the legalisation of gay marriage. So it will be with BLP and transgenderism. Dred Scott v. Sandford is now regarded as a shameful misinterpretation of the Constitution, and the same will be true of the recent events surrounding Chelsea Manning. I believe the day will come when it will be viewed as utterly unacceptable to discriminate against and vilify any LGBT individuals anywhere on WP. I am sad that this day was not today. EdChem (talk) 18:48, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

FWIW, using a transperson's former name, knowingly, is often a part of the cycle of violence that trans people face regularly. It's a sign that one is not respected as a full human being; that you can disparage a core component of one's identity therefore you see them as less than fully themselves. As subhuman. As something that's disposable. Something that needs to be fixed. Disparaging transpeople is entrenched in many cultures but in the US it's more profound because Americans have more issues with oversexualizing many topics, like being boob-centric. Sportfan5000 (talk) 19:22, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Indeed; there are plenty of blogs (often run by neoradical transphobic feminists) that are solely used to harass trans people by dredging up personal information such as their former names, and ends up contributing to violent attitudes. Sceptre ^(talk) 19:27, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Something that comes up time and time again with regards to transgender issues on Wikipedia in general is the idea that those who have any familiarity with the topic (either from being trans or knowing someone who is trans) are accused of POV-pushing, and people who have little familiarity with the topic are welcomed as they're able to edit "dispassionately". This is often encapsulated in accusing editors who know about the topic of wanting to "right great wrongs", despite that not being the spirit of that guideline; see, for example, Talk:Laura Jane Grace – Birth name in first paragraph. This is at odds with how we treat any other topic; for example, KillerChihuahua (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) has a great familiarity with the scientific method and what constitutes science. To wit, she often enforces FRINGE very well. Would we accept the argument that she can't edit pseudoscience articles because of that? I honestly don't think we would. And, in the end, all it does is entrenches privilege and systemic bias on the encyclopedia. Sceptre ^(talk) 19:27, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

I have to say I'm pretty appalled by the way this has turned out. Wikipedia actually got plaudits for how it has handled it, and major media organisations like the AP and New York Times have transitioned to using the female name. We're now in the unique situation (as far as I know) of actually having transitioned to the female name and then reverted back to the male name, against the subject's explicitly expressed wishes. How in the world does this comply with BLP? Or for that matter with common sense? It makes Wikipedia look like a laughing stock, and frankly on this occasion Wikipedia deserves all the criticism it's now going to get. Prioryman (talk) 19:51, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

A black day indeed for wikipedia, not only abandoning common sense but also our own policies while we ignore the most bitter hatred of transgender ppl and even, apparently, giving ppl with such hatred an equal vote to experienced editors in the worst RMs I have ever seen. Thanks, ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 19:56, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

The closers explained why certain policies/guidelines mentioned aren't violated by "Bradley". The main closer also made clear in his sandbox that the few transphobic votes made would be discounted. 2.102.186.231 (talk) 20:49, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I read the closers' explanation. It was perfectly valid from a legalistic viewpoint but also completely misjudged the situation. The bottom line is that we now have a situation where:

• Wikipedia is refusing to use a person's chosen name (this may be the only BLP in the entire wiki where this is the case);
• Wikipedia formerly did accept the change in name, but has now reversed itself.

These two facts are bad for Wikipedia. They make us look ridiculous and petty, especially as we had previously been praised by media sources for our willingness to acknowledge Manning's name change. They also are glaringly out of sync with how major media organisations have handled it. The closers have done a perfectly adequate analysis of what the various policies and guidelines state but do not appear to have considered the reasons and spirits of those directives. To use a real-world analogy, the reason Americans have a right to use contraception is because the US Supreme Court inferred a right to privacy in the Constitution, even though it does not mention privacy. If the Court had not decided to look at the spirit of the Constitution and had instead just taken a literalist reading of it, there would be no Constitutional right to privacy in the US. In the same vein, the closers should have taken a broader view of whether reverting to the earlier name was in the spirit of BLP (which clearly it was not) and whether the decision to do so would be in Wikipedia's own interests (equally clearly not). The closers can and have quoted a ream of policies and guidelines in favour of their decision, but ultimately the two facts I listed above are what people outside Wikipedia will take note of, not the legalistic special pleading. Prioryman (talk) 21:45, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia doesn't use a subject's chosen name all the time. Cat Stevens is one such person.

Wikipedia never accepted the name change as requiring the article title to have that name. One admin move-warred and the other wheel-warred to do that.

Wikipedia is supposed to be a neutral encyclopaedia, not a media slut.

Major media organisations such as the BBC continue to use "Bradley", not just in the title, but in their entire article.

The spirit of BLP is of course debatable, but it's certainly not clear that it agrees with "Chelsea". I would argue that even the spirit, not just the text as you admit, has no problem with "Bradley". 2.102.186.231 (talk) 22:23, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

I think the spirit of BLP at the very least implies respect for the autonomy of an article's subject. With the reasoning that's just been used, it's not too difficult to see how we might end up (for example) rejecting Cassius Clay's renaming to Muhammad Ali. (And in fact, there were quite a few media sources at the time that rejected the latter name.) The bottom line is whether or not you accept that people have a right to call themselves what they want. If you don't then you are imposing an identity on them, presumptively an identity that they themselves do not want - that's what I can't reconcile with the spirit of BLP. Prioryman (talk) 22:36, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

'Wikipedia doesn't use a subject's chosen name all the time. Cat Stevens is one such person.' - the fact that we have failed in one article doesn't justify failing in other articles. Personally, I think it's bizarre and absurd that we insist on referring to a living person by a name they haven't used since 1978. That position is considerably more offensive than calling Manning 'Bradley', IMO (which is still wrong, but closer to justifiable). Robofish (talk) 23:32, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

This is a pretty little pickle. I do think we should call Bradley Mannning, Chelsea Manning, as he so wishes. Presumably, Chelsea will be the name he favors from now on and I think Chelsea's choice of name should be respected. Certainly, we mostly know Chelsea as Bradley and, as with any sudden name change, it will be quite an adjustment to refer to him by some new name. Still, it does appears Chelsea will be known by that name from this point forward, presuming he does stick to keeping that name and does not choose another one for himself. That is the only thing that leaves me uncertain, since he did previously intend to by the name "Breanna", but I suppose since Chelsea gave an official statement for this chosen name we can presume this is the name he is going to use from now on. Reliable sources will catch up soon enough.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 23:27, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

So, just to be clear, you're ok with the name change, but you're going to keep referring to Chelsea Manning as "he"? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 01:26, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm making one comment on this, maybe responding once or twice to any responses, and getting back to working on an article which has real privacy/human decency concerns. I really don't care what the article is written like, as my interest in Manning has nothing to do with any gender changes, but it seems extremely prejudiced to say that anyone who dares not slavishly adhere to GLAAD recommendations on writing about transgender people is automatically a transphobic bigot. There's no one size fits all solution—not everyone (Mina Caputo, for one) recoils in horror and offense at the mention of their previous name and identity—and this seems like an issue best treated on a case-by-case basis. Since I'm obviously being referred to above, the part about righting great wrongs is absolutely relevant; I state here, as I did in the discussion about Laura Jane Grace, that in many congruous situations we do not retroactively change things to suit peoples' preferences. When Indian castes demand to be known as all brahmans and kshatriyas, our refusal to acquiesce on that is significantly more damaging than refusing to rewrite an article on one person using only one set of pronouns, and yet we have no problem doing so to preserve historical accuracy. I have mercifully never seen an Indian caste article with "In X year the Saini (then shudras)" or "The following century several Saini (at this point still shudras)". It in no way justifies the often horrifying treatment of people in shudra castes, that's just neutrally reporting on their history. Attempting to force through a change retroactively changing a group's varna and screaming, "I know better because I'm a member of this caste, and everyone who disagrees with me is a bigot" would never work, and I'm failing to see why that should be a valid course of argument in this situation. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 08:35, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

That's all weird foreigner stuff though, so we're not likely to have crazy emotionally-charged admin wars over it anytime soon, because practically every en.wp admin is a middle/upper-class white person born and raised in Europe or the Anglosphere, most of whom have probably never heard half those words before in their lives. So they just don't get involved. Which means that the few that do get involved, likely have a genuine intellectual interest in the topic, and are much more able to keep cool heads and dispassionately consider the issues, rather than desiring to impose their own personal views. The project desperately needs some method of resolving disputes other than the current options, which in any highly controversial topic amount to, a) "have lots of people edit war and sometimes war with admin tools, argue a lot, then have a self-selected group of admins make a final decision," and b) ArbCom.

You know, there are people who don't edit Wikipedia who have lots of experience studying topics that the encyclopedia covers. How about trying to recruit them, and setting things up so it's not necessary to make thousands of edits and understand a Byzantine labyrinth of policies in order to assist in resolving disputes? They don't have to be admins, and I would argue it's better that they not be, for the same reason that most democratic countries have a separation between the police forces and the judiciary. The social system of the English Wikipedia basically forces all disputes to be decided by admins, who because of the criteria for adminship, are almost invariably geeks who are either school students or people with careers that are amenable to spending lots of time editing websites. And I don't mean to use "geek" in a pejorative sense—I identify as a geek myself—but simply as a descriptor for people who have a lot of interest in computers and related things. --108.38.191.162 (talk) 10:27, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes, DC. I don't have any issue with Chelsea Manning dressing in "feminine" style, drastically altering his outward appearance, getting his genitals surgically altered to resemble a female's genitalia, or him getting himself injected with estrogen to be more "effeminate". Chelsea is an adult and it is his body to do with as he pleases, though the military probably won't let him do most of that stuff in prison. That said, I am not going to act as though he is a girl, because he is not. Now, I can't push that approach on Wikipedia articles, since it is my own personal view and conflicts with reliable sources as well as consensus, though I do think articles should adopt a "he until she" approach to avoid confusing statements such as "When she was 13 she began to question her sexual orientation." Manning is not a lesbian, he is a man who is interested in other men, but that much does not get across with such a statement. Statements such as "Manning was raised as a boy" to qualify the use of female pronouns is another bit of absurdity. He was "raised" as a boy because he was born a boy and has lived as a boy for nearly his entire life. Stuff like that is more important to address than whether he should be called Chelsea or Bradley.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 17:12, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

That's mighty White of you, Devil's Advocate, mighty White. You say "he" was born a boy. Some would disagree with that, and it's certainly not established fact. I'd even say that amongst biologists who specialise in the science of sex and gender, it's opposite to the consensus. Perhaps you could give reasons for your bald assertion there? Bearing in mind her neuro-anatomy? Zoe Brain (talk) 10:37, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Actually, I imagine the most a responsible biologist would say is that a person can be born physically male and neurologically female or vice versa. Me, I only take issue with the concept of "neurological" gender. The brain is a complex and ever-changing organ. Our mental states our also complex and ever-changing. I think it is far more bald an assertion to suggest our brains can force us to reject our biological sex and nothing can be done about it. For all the rhetoric of transgender activists arguing that gender is not immutable and rejecting gender conformity, at the end of the day they are really encouraging gender conformity and insisting gender is immutable. The only difference is a disagreement over what part of it is immutable and what means of conformity should be chosen. Not sure what relevance race has to do with any of it.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 14:01, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

The Ultimate problem with this is that people like Jimbo Wales or 99% of the editors have no clue about trans issues, yet think they are in a better position to decide what affects us. If you were to cross check an article on gravity, you'd ask a physicist. But the trans community, who are well versed in their own oppression, are not considered a "reliable source" by wikipedia. The implied cis-sexism here is astonishing. But of course, everyone considers themselves oh so progressive, so if a trans person tells them otherwise, obviously they must be in the wrong. Because being progressive means listening first and foremost to straight, cis white people.Little Miss Desu (talk) 12:32, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

There's some truth to that, but there's also some meta:MPOV concerns with it. Experts should be able to point to sources and establish that they are right with little trouble. Physicists in particular can point to experiments that not only say "I believe this" but "I can convince you with evidence." The problem with a lot of the arguments that were made is that they appeared to be MPOV arguments, in particular, quoting from that page:

• "You know you're acting in good faith, but assume many others involved are acting in bad faith"
• "You believe that all other versions of the article are biased"
• "You believe it is necessary for you to repeatedly revert the article"
• "You accuse others of conspiring to produce a bad version of the article"

The claim "I'm an expert and you're all (insert derogatory adjective here)" doesn't work well in an environment where no one can verify credentials. If you can show, don't tell that you're an expert, people will recognize your expertise. If you scream bloody murder because someone disagreed with you, people are going to assume that you're just opinionated rather than informed. For what it's worth, serious people disagree on transgender issues, in part because psychology research tends to be unconvincing. Doing proper experiments in psychology has resulted in a lot of serious ethical problems, and the field is heavily based on opinion and uncontrolled observation, though some of it is well-controlled nonhuman research (e.g. Skinner and Pavlov). 71.231.186.92 (talk) 15:41, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

You've managed to say what I tried to in far more words above. I'd only add that sometimes clarity is a serious issue and forces our hand. For instance, the Ainu people don't like that name and would prefer to be referred to as Utari, but only they and people who study their history (like myself) know that name, so we refer to them on Wikipedia as the Ainu. It has nothing to do with us forcing some colonial name on them, it's just the most recognizable name. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 16:35, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

None of this, of course, changes the fact that it's still a bunch of cis people deciding on how a trans individual should be identified. You can dress it up however you like - it is plainly wrong and ignorant and the voices of the trans community have been made clear on this several times. Trying to be poetic about it doesn't help your case and only makes you look further removed from reality.Little Miss Desu (talk) 22:31, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

I think you're the one who is a bit removed. Please look at WP:AT and read it very carefully. This policy has been developed over many years, through consensus. You are now calling for an exception to that policy, just for trans people. There is resistance to such a change. Consensus is a bitch sometimes - so now things are leading in a slightly different direction. Sources are shifting, so it's entirely possible that the commonname could be clearly Chelsea in a matter of weeks. Have a bit of patience with the world, it will catch up.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 23:11, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Then I look forward to you supporting moving all articles on the Ainu people to Utari; after all, their position in this world is far more threatened even than transgender people, and they have made it very clear what their preference is. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 16:35, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

That's the problem, once we open this up to "Title the article based on the subject's preference" - if that happened, we would hence move Ivory Coast, Burma, David Berkowitz, Snoop Dogg, Cat Stevens, and many others. But I don't see any value in making an exception for trans - if we're saying a person or entity has the right to decide what their wikipedia article title is, then we have to open up the floodgates - otherwise we're not being neutral. On Ainu, I didn't see any move discussions at Ainu people, and it's probably low traffic so you could likely move that article. I agree, however, the bulk of RS will probably still lean towards Ainu.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 18:02, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

As much as I prefer the name Utari, it's obscure to the point where non-specialists don't know what it means, and we have an obligation not to cause unnecessary confusion to our readers (and for the record, I'm a white American, I have no personal stake in that). The RS are just about 100% in favor of Ainu, so that's what we do. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 23:09, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

I honestly don't see the massive problem with "Cote D'Ivoire", "Myanmar", "Snoop Lion", or "Yusuf Islam". In relation to Berkowitz, it's a moot point, as the common name is surely "Son of Sam"? Sceptre ^(talk) 19:37, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

NEITHER DO I! However, a massive turnout of wikipedia editors do - on all of these issues, especially the countries, retaining the name of the country at the so-called COMMONNAME resulted in epic battles. Berkowitz would now (since 1987) prefer to be called "Son of Hope" - are you willing to move that article? If you are truly approaching this in a neutral fashion, you should not prioritize trans people over those who have had religious conversions, or those who change their stage name, or those who are married but want to keep their maiden name, or any OTHER reason X prefers to be called Y. There is a discussion at WP:AT on a compromise proposal, which is not "IF A TRANS PERSON SAYS THEIR NAME IS X THE ARTICLE MUST BE TITLED X" shouting we've heard a million times, but rather a more balanced version, that says basically, if a subject changes their name, AND a significant amount of reliable sources start to USE that name - even if it ISN'T the most common, then we can take their clearly stated preference into account. In this case, Berkowitz would NOT be moved to "Son of Hope", as no-one calls him that - but Manning would certainly be moved (sources are now trending towards most common actually), but so would Ivory Coast, Burma, Snoop, Cat Stevens, and many others. Those fighting the good fight for trans* people need to be willing to understand the implications of such a policy change and help push it through across other titles in the wiki - if we don't, and try for trans-exceptionalism here, we are not being neutral and are instead deciding that the harm-o-meter for Manning crosses the threshold, but mislabeling a country of 20M people, or calling an indigenous tribe of 100s of thousands of people by a name they HATE - remains ok per COMMONNAME. I think the best path is a measured tweak to the titling policy, that lets Manning (and Cat Stevens, Ivory Coast, etc) slip through, while keeping "My name is now Jesus" or "I am a dog" out of it - in other words, a compromise between subject's clearly and carefully stated preference and reliable source usage, and between what name might possibly annoy the subject, and what article title is most useful to our readers.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 20:39, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Please note this letter from Manning's attorney dated Sept 3, 2013 - [21]. I think the case can be made for female pronouns in the WP article, but Manning is still using her former name and will be for quite some time. Note that this letter is from the attorney that said Manning is female and prefers that female pronouns be used. Note that this letter uses male pronouns and the only first name is "Bradley." This was sent to President Obama. Certainly Obama would not be confused by feminine pronouns and "Chelsea" so why not call Manning by his preferred name in this request? Why use male gender pronouns in this correspondence? Certainly if Manning's own attorney isn't going to refer to him as "Chelsea" or "she" people can hardly be called "removed" for following the same message. The attorney said "from this point forward" in correspondence prior to the aboive pardon request. Yet, he is apparently acting against his client's own wishes? The answer of course is "no, he isn't acting against Manning's wishes" and Manning is commonly known as "Bradley" --DHeyward (talk) 17:17, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

*sigh* If I call myself "winky-wanky-woo" then that would not be the title of an article about me UNLESS a) I have my name changed legally (like Prince), or b) I start to become well-known by that name (Rihanna comes to mind). The challenge that I see with the Manning article is not the title: name legally changed = new name. However, timing of events is the issue: Manning did X, Y and Z while they were a HE (and legally named as a he). They started to do A and B after their gender change, so we end up with a change in pronouns. Just because they felt they were a female did not legally make them a female, unfortunately. When they went through reassignment, and legally changed their name, they became authoritatively a female. By using a male pronoun we do not deny their "feeling" - we're simply reflecting legal authority. I'm personally fine with the article being named Chelsea because that is what she is called now, as per law and sources. However, I would be in favour of a dividing line in the article where male pronouns are used for the encyclopedic entries when they were legally a "he" and female pronouns when they became legally appropriate. ES&L 23:27, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

VisualEditor newsletter for September 5

This Thursday's VisualEditor update was mostly about stability and performance improvements, and some preparatory work for major planned improvements, along with bug fixes for non-English language support and right-to-left text. Everything that the English Wikipedia received today has been running on Mediawiki for a week already.

Officially, the problem with the link inspector not linking to a specific section on a page (bug 53219) was fixed in this release, although that critical patch actually appeared here earlier.

A number of bugs related to copy-and-paste functionality were fixed (48604, bug 50043, bug 53362, bug 51538, among others). Full rich copy-and-paste from external sources into VisualEditor is expected "soon".

In other fixes, you can no longer add empty ref tags (<ref/>) (bug 53345). Selecting both an image and some text, and then trying to add a link, previously deleted the selected image and the text. This was fixed in bug 50127. There was another problem related to using arrow keys to move the cursor next to an inline image that was fixed (bug 53507).

Looking ahead: The next planned upgrade is scheduled for next Thursday, and you should expect to find a redesigned toolbar with drop-down menus that include room for references, templates, underline, strikethrough, superscript, subscript, and code formatting. There will also be keyboard shortcuts for setting the format (paragraph vs section headings).

If you are active at other Wikipedias, the next group of Wikipedias to have VisualEditor offered to all users is being determined at this time. Generally speaking, languages that depend on the input method editor are not going to receive VisualEditor this month. The current target date is Tuesday, September 24 for logged-in users only. You can help with translating the documentation. In several cases, most of the translation is already done, and it only needs to be copied over to the relevant Wikipedia. If you are interested in finding out whether a particular Wikipedia is currently on the list, you can leave a message for me at my talk page.

For other questions or suggestions, or if you encounter problems, please let everyone know by posting problem reports at Wikipedia:VisualEditor/Feedback and other ideas at Wikipedia talk:VisualEditor. Thank you! Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 21:53, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Its too bad they didn't hesitate before releasing it to this Wikipedia before they broke a couple hundred pages (many of which still have yet to be fixed) and caused all kinds of problems and confusion with this buggy software. At least our pain and irritation is being considered before the WMF looks even worse and releases it to the other language projects. The down side is this project should have been the one that should have had the implementation carefully since we do more edits in an hour than some of the others do in a month. Kumioko (talk) 00:25, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

• Focus on VE lessons learned: I appreciate the comments above, and I would focus also on general lessons learned about WYSIWYG editors, and the limits of acceptance. The forced release of VE on all enwiki JavaScript users provided massive data to reveal numerous conclusions. While I do not want to ignore the real "pain and irritation" caused by VE, I was amazed at the high rejection levels: 97% of prior users in August 2013 chose the wikitext source editor, AWB, wp:ProveIt (etc.) rather than 2 months of VE, while ~80% of new usernames rejected VE for other edits. The bizarreness of the hideous software bugs helps to prove how WYSIWYG software is extremely difficult to develop (or design) and often massively complex in its numerous, mind-boggling quirks (such as above: "Selecting both an image and some text, and then trying to add a link, previously deleted the selected image and the text"). In such software development, there is often a lot of "WYS" but not as much "WYG" because getting results in a WYSIWYG system is not as simple as might be imagined; instead there are often numerous keystrokes and menu-choice conniptions to fry the minds of unsuspecting new users. Many users confirmed how adding VE references was far more complex than wikitext cites. Again, I regret how so many hundreds (or thousands?) of people suffered to use VE, but the lessons have been intriguing. It amazed me to see various highly-talented admins, or other users, burn hundreds of hours, basically sacrificing the entire month of July to VE as if being a top priority, without re-focus on the 95% of total users who rejected VE. Thereby, we had confirmation of talented admins with distorted priorities, 5-to-95, or roughly 1-to-19 off the rails. In general, "NEVER release a text editor which fails to save a large edit, especially a VE which craters on very large edits". It would be interesting to run a follow-up study, after 6-12 months, to ask people if they would use VE again or why not. The results would be interesting, but I hope hundreds of users were not traumatized by VE. The "human guinea pig" aspects of VE testing were a dark side. -Wikid77 (talk) 05:03, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Is there is any safe way to browse the internet these days?

• US and UK spy agencies defeat privacy and security on the internet.

They can hack "HTTPS, voice-over-IP and Secure Sockets Layer (SSL)". Given the apparent focus on "Arabic language/Middle East oriented anonymous internet service"[22] and the strong relations of the US and UK with the repressive regime of Al Khalifa,[23] [24] I'm finding myself feeling less comfortable about my internet privacy by each day. Mohamed CJ (talk) 03:30, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Also in the New York Times, and it is jaw-dropping stuff. It makes you wonder how much use encryption actually is.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 07:11, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

• Talked about noise-relative encryption: For cases requiring extreme security, we discussed using a well-known "noise-based" encoding to shift all data, perhaps alternating characters up/down against a noise background, such as the pixel-levels in photo #45 in a "family photo group" uploaded to a commonplace photo-website, then change to photo #32 as the noise-mask for another part of a conversation, or data download. Another encrypted message, or person-to-person talk, would decide the sequence of photo numbers or audio files (such as reverse number the 54 playing cards in a Hoyle deck), or whatever, would be the noise-basis data during various transmissions. Using those shifting, noise-based encryptions, it is almost impossible to hack the messages, with "megapixels" of noise data to consider, possibly all offset by "1492" pixel-groups times hour 1-24 on October 12. Older computers simply did not have the power to decompose a large photo (in memory) as the noise-mask during encryption, while applying another transform to each pixel level when encoded. However, now spooks can use the millions of images in Commons as the "noise stream" and continually download hundreds more images, each week, in case the prior thousand images which were downloaded might be known as possible noise files. -Wikid77 07:23, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

I certainly wasn't briefed, but I certainly wasn't gobsmacked. As I said before and have long believed, the SSL scheme smacked of key escrow to me from the start, even if there is supposedly a voluntary choice on the part of the companies handing over their keys. But we should bear in mind that right now there is a far simpler threat, traffic analysis: the NSA can simply keep a record of how big the current version of each Wikipedia page is after being encrypted (also I think the photos are served separately, right?) and deduce what page is being looked at. Dealing with that was step 5 (the next step, and the last feasible step) in the roadmap for securing Wikipedia.

Right now though, as aggravated as I am with the NSA for their tactics, there are more immediate problems: scarcely a media organization out there seems to be able to keep the Syrian Electronic Army from hacking them inside and out, and Wikipedia may well be considered by them to be a media organization. Until we secure our sites to be free of such interlopers, it is easy to see why the government would want equal rights to hack into our stuff - the problem being that the atmosphere they have fostered, of secret loopholes, domination by large companies that hold their market position selling us out behind the scenes, secret source code, open markets in zero-day hacks, legal barriers to reverse engineering - all that crap adds up to a climate where the country is utterly defenseless, against its own spies and against everyone else. You'd think they would mind that, but maybe they're more interested in the profit they can make through insider trading than the national security. Wnt (talk) 08:28, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Bruce Schneier is right that inserting government backdoors into encryption is counterproductive. If the backdoors fell into the hands of groups like the Syrian Electronic Army, they could be used to cause enormous damage to the US and other countries.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 09:05, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

It is important to read these reports with a keen eye for detail. The news reports are simplified, as they must be, for general audiences. But if you have an understanding of encryption and the various attack vectors, there is nothing here to suggest that all encryption is broken, nor even that relatively mainstream encryption is broken in the general case. There are a number of attack routes that appear to be productive, and we've known that in theory for a long time. What we now know is there is a massive program to implement those attack routes, which include key theft, bribing tech companies to insert weaknesses, propaganda to end users, encouraging people to use too-short keys or weak algorithms, etc.

Here is an important thing to consider: the spies are sophisticated, even in their management of spin. On average, they will be very happy to have the general public believe that all encryption is broken, that they can read anything, anytime, anywhere. Why? Because it makes using encryption less appealing to the general public, which means more stuff sent in the clear. But if you read the actual documents carefully here, they talk about how 'fragile' these programs are. This is because, as real security experts will tell you, the mathematics of encryption are pretty damned compelling. Flaws in encryption can be exploited, but they can also be avoided.

The message the general public needs to understand is this: strong encryption works. It is estimated that a brute force attack on a single AES-256 key would take significantly more than the energy production of the planet earth for a year. There is always a nagging fear that maybe the NSA will come up with a genius mathematical breakthrough unknown to academia, but barring that, strong encryption works. There is good reason for people to use it routinely, and that will remain true even though specific implementations and specific attack vectors will always continue to exist.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 10:13, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm not a skilled developer, and I could be wrong, but to give an example of the kind of paranoia people might want to deal with, consider Wikipedia password salts. Because Wikipedia users may reuse passwords from other sites, the password database is a highly appealing target. Fortunately, it is protected by password salts, at least if global $wgPasswordSalt it set. Tracing back the routine, however, I notice that the choice of password salt [25] line 4461 is sensibly referred by generate() [26] line 310 mcrypt_create_iv docs to urandom which I assume is the same as /dev/random , a reliable source of hardware random numbers, which are used for an 8-digit hex code. All very above board, and yet, there is an avenue of attack. The NSA has a habit of undermining random numbers [27] and apparently Matt McAll, maintainer of the Linux random number generator, actually resigned over the decision to use a patch from Intel that made dev/random directly dependent on a sealed chip from the company. [28] (From the beginning I always assumed that the warning "Intel Inside" was no idle threat!) I would be more comfortable if the random password salt were generated using a few more amateur random-ish wiki parameters added in, like the number of milliseconds it took to generate the last page or something. Wnt (talk) 18:33, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

I think you are right Jimbo; strong encryption works. I've read an article sent to me via email with the same conclusion [29]. The NSA has turned the fabric of the internet into a vast surveillance platform, but they are not magical. They're limited by the same economic realities as the rest of us, and our best defense is to make surveillance of us as expensive as possible. Trust the math. Encryption is your friend. Use it well, and do your best to ensure that nothing can compromise it. That's how you can remain secure even in the face of the NSA. Mohamed CJ (talk) 20:04, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

The recent Snowden claims seem to be referring to a combination of backdoors, bribery and bullying. It is much easier to insert weaknesses into encryption software, compromise the companies selling SSL certificates etc, rather than to attack the encryption itself.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 05:49, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Even if they have found weaknesses in common ciphers there will most likely still be a significant extra cost associated with breaking them which could make mass surveillance and mapping of internet habits prohibitive, so everyone should try to use cryptography for as much as possible. It is also worth considering that others than the government might be spying on people.--Space simian (talk) 11:08, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps have Lua-based cites link as https

See also: "wp:PUMPTECH#Lua-based cites could auto-link as https"

Because the Lua-based cites are so quick, there is ample speed to auto-relink all sources from the current hard-coded "http:" into procol-relative format "//..." when a page is being formatted to store the cache version (or during edit-preview). This would allow even users with high-security browsers to keep all links within the https-protocol format and avoid security warnings of dropping down to http to view a source website. Before Lua, trimming hundreds (200+) of URL strings to omit "http:" was not feasible for large articles due to the 60-second timeout during edit-preview; however, the developers might have a plan to force all external links as protocol-relative unless they contain a special code-sequence in the URL, to keep "http:" for rare websites which do not handle https. Again, the current links use the hard-coded "http:" prefix to drop from secure-protocol when viewing most sources, perhaps casting a visible shadow around the source websites to help infer which articles are being read. I think the Lua-based cites could be upgraded during a few days to auto-relink as protocol-relative URLs, using Lua's rapid built-in substring feature to extract the URL at the "//..." portion (omitting "http*:"), with basically zero overhead in processing speed. The main issues are consensus, preparation and any side-effects. -Wikid77 07:23, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

• Many websites cannot handle https as auto-link: Other users are confirming how too many major websites do not yet support https-protocol, and that prevents an easy auto-linking to source websites as https. Even the U.S. Library of Congress does not support https protocol for private viewing of LCCN documents, which forces readers to be publicly watched for each specific page they read, such as catalogue entry:

• http://lccn.loc.gov/sn2006058112 - works quickly, but publicly
• https://lccn.loc.gov/sn2006058112 - fails to connect to webpage

At least people have been able to consider the concept of auto-linking to https/http as a very complex problem, as perhaps an option to consider with some limited application to various major websites; otherwise, each separate cite entry should link to https-ready webpages with protocol-relative format "//..." and link to http-only with the "http:" prefix. The world is not ready for widespread encryption of sources, and viewing patterns can be deduced by watching most of the source links visited. So, WP also allows more privacy in reading "the sum of human knowledge" in some ways the world does not. -Wikid77 (talk) 00:37, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Where is your response, Mr. Wales?

Mr. Wales, Friday came and went, but three's no response from you even in my spam folder. 50.174.76.70 (talk) 01:41, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Friday hasn't left the US yet. Count Iblis (talk) 02:25, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

I haven't even had Friday night dinner, and lunch just ended in Hawaii. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:27, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

To give Jimbo more time, let's redraw the International Date Line. We let it move from the North Pole to Jimbo's lattitude and then at constant lattitude let it move West until it arrives at Jimbo's longitude. We then let it wrap around Jimbo in an anti-clockwise way, it then moves back along the same line at constant longitude to the point where it departed from its usual trajectory. It then moves from there to the South Pole in the usual way. Count Iblis (talk) 02:39, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Several hours of "Friday" remain. We could use the Count Iblis technique, or we could follow my mother's maxim: "Patience is a virtue". Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:14, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Pardon me, what is your name?

I ask because I am familiar with knowing you as Jimbo and wonder if this is what you prefer to be known as. I understand how wp:commonname works and realize that it supports your Wikipedia article being titled Jimmy Wales but there are strong assertions being made by high profile users that because of wp:blp, the article subject's preference supersedes wp:commonname. Consider this quote from the wp:rfar regarding Bradeley v. Chelsea Manning: "In this case, WP:COMMONNAME would not be allowed to make a naming decision over WP:BLP when it is the wish and the will of the subject." It is therefor why I ask; is it your wish and your will that your article be titled using Jimmy?—John Cline (talk) 16:29, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Addendum - By the way, I do not recall this "wish and will" interpretation coming to bear on the will.i.am discussion, but rather the complete contrary. We can not be a house divided while expecting to stand. This "wish and will" interpretation can not be the rule for advocates of WP:LBGT sensitivities while all other groups are denied the same respect in having their wishes championed as the predominate consideration. In my opinion that is.—John Cline (talk) 16:45, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

• See name clarification in page "User:Jimbo Wales" about "Jimbo" being an online moniker. In person, around other people, I would tend to refer to him as "Mr. Wales" as a formal address in mixed company. However, in smaller groups, I would expect to hear the name "Jimmy" in the person-to-person conversations. Does that make sense? -Wikid77 (talk) 17:29, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

• Yes it makes sense; as does reading the user page. What doesn't make sense, to me, is the notion that his preference could in fact supersede our wp:mos naming conventions, in particular wp:commonname. Regarding Bradley v. Chelsea, I think we will soon arrive at Chelsea Manning for the article's title, and it will happen because our policies and guidelines support such a move—unless advocacy wins the day and we adopt some form of the emerging "wish and will" doctrine, which I see as detrimental; unless of course it was to appliy to everyone; even pray tell, Jimbo, or will.i.am for that matter (it nearly took an act of congress to drop Jr. from his name, after he requested its removal).—John Cline (talk) 17:53, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

His article name is based on his actual name. His account name has no requirement for being any type of legal description. If Bradley Manning wants to have an account where he calls herself Chelsea Manning, there should be absolutely no problem with that. What exactly are you asking? (Yes. I mixed genders purposely, just for the sake of the argument.) --Onorem (talk) 18:08, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Hello Onorem. I agree with everything you said. I apparently wasn't clear in asking my question; and should have done some research before asking it. I assumed Jimbo was the name Mr. Wales preferred to use; not because he has an account in that name, but because his name is shown as Jimmy Donal "Jimbo" Wales and inserting "Jimbo" has meaning. Considering that William Jefferson "Bill" Clinton is titled Bill Clinton, Kenneth Stanley "Bud" Adams, Jr. is titled Bud Adams, Kenneth Stanley "Boots" Adams is titled Boots Adams, Albert Arnold "Al" Gore, Jr. is titled Al Gore and so on, I asked Mr. Wales if he had a similar preference. I suspect he does not; after reading his user page which explains his affinity to Jimbo. If I had read it first, I wouldn't have asked the question. I hope this explains my intent better; I suspect it does not.—John Cline (talk) 01:10, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

At last Clinton and Gore are commonly referred to that way by reliable sources (I'm not familliar with the other two, but I suspect the same is true). Wher reliable sources are split, or only a minority use the preferred name, the issue is a bit murky, but I'd suggest (not, AFAIK, based on any policy) that a name that is likely to cause offence to the subject is avoided (e.g. using Mohammed Ali's former name). No comment on whether that applies to the Chelsea/Bradley situation, or how the lawyer's comments affect it. MChesterMC (talk) 10:03, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

I agree. You are correct that all of the examples are using the wp:commonname.—John Cline (talk) 13:46, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

You don't agree with what I've said. From what I can tell, the main issue with people arguing on the Manning article isn't which name to use, but which gender to use when describing the subject (for the entirely of their life...) --Onorem (talk) 01:35, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

To answer the question simply. I prefer the name "Jimmy Wales" in person. I have for a great many years signed "Jimbo" online and people do refer to me that in the Wikipedia context (it's a nice and mostly unique name to use so that's helpful here in the same way that any other username might be). One of the reasons I like "Jimbo" is that it's an obviously casual name and I like to interact with people on a casual basis when I'm online. WP:COMMONNAME is mostly about how the press refers to someone, and in my case that's "Jimmy Wales". Conveniently that's the name I go by in day to day life as well.

For those who are incorrectly obsessed with what birth certificates say, it's worth noting that my birth certificate (like that of Will.i.am) is in error - it says that I am "Jimmie". What someone's birth certificate says is only weak evidence of what their name really is.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 13:53, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Please reread our article on will.i.am and the talk page, of it, where it has been shown, with reliable sources (including interviews with will.i.am), that his birth certificate is not "in error", but rather that he wasn't aware of what it said until he was 25 or thereabouts. That he or his mom reportedly doesn't like what it says doesn't mean that it is in error. Fram (talk) 14:41, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Fram, the odd thing about that is, I don't recall that being covered in reliable sources as a claim of fact. Isn't that original research? If this isn't OR, is this mentioned in multiple RS in direct context to the claim Will.i.am is in error. Why are we not being more sensitive to the actual wishes of the person as to how they are listed on Wikipedia> The Will.i.am situation has always seemed like editors are trying to be investigative journalists. Since we are talking about it again why not explain it and discuss the issue and how the information is being decided. We might as well.--Mark Miller (talk) 03:23, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Where do you get the "Will.i.am is in error" part? I have no knowledge from reliable sources that will.i.am has ever claimed that his birth certificate was in error. We have second hand reports of someone cla!iming that will.i.am said that in a private conversation, but this hasn't been confirmed anywhere. On the other hand, we have things like this, with the crucial passage "Aged 25, when a passport application resulted in him seeing his full birth certificate for the first time, he found out that his real, full name was William James Adams Jr. He was named after the father he'd never known, and whom no one in his family ever discussed. "That's not your dad; I'm your dad," his mum told him when confronted with his discovery. "When people make mistakes, as far as people that they fall in love with ... Well, that man doesn't have the right to be called your dad. That's a very powerful name that you have. You've utilised it. It's his fault that he didn't live up to that name." For Will, who's "supertight" with his mum, that was explanation enough." This source, repeated in this one, is a lot more gossipy and less reliable on its own, but as an interview with will.i.am; it directly confirms the above: “I’m never hostile and I ain’t ashamed of the name on my birth certificate." (emphasis mine) Nowhere does he claim that his birth certificate is wrong, or that it is something he doesn't want to see printed or republished. Why would we believe one editor's claim (who may have misunderstood or otherwise made a mistake) above what reliable sources claim? Why are the editors using actual newspaper reports directly about the issue said to be "investigative journalists" doing OR, when an editor who has done nothing except repeat what he claimed was said to him is being left alone and actually supported? If I had done interviews, tried to get a copy of his birth certificate, ..., then your claim that this was investigative journalism wuold have merits. Repeating easily available newspaper articles isn't worthy of that lofty title though. Fram (talk) 06:53, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

"I have no knowledge from reliable sources that will.i.am has ever claimed that his birth certificate was in error. We have second hand reports of someone cla!iming that will.i.am said that in a private conversation, but this hasn't been confirmed anywhere." It doesn't need to be confirmed. Where on earth are you getting that from? Subjects of Wikipedia articles routinely contact admin and other editors to assist in correcting and fixing information on their own articles. DOB and names are routinely taken as fact from the source. If an admin (which it was) says in an edit summary "I'm sitting here with him and he says..." then we can take that on face value because all you are doing is questioning that admin if you say it hasn't been confirmed...uhm actually yeah, the subject told an editor directly and there was and is no reason to assume it to be false.--Mark Miller (talk) 01:01, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

The source: Force of Will, By Craig McLean - 4:00 AM Saturday May 30, 2009 can easily be dismissed as you see nothing from Will himself in regards to the exact name. Seriously. all of the information is coming from the reporter McLean. Will i.am only talks about his perceptions of being a father. He never admits to his full name. The reporter may well have made an assumption from the discovery of his fathers name and assumed he was named exactly the same, but sons are also named the same name as the father and it not be a Jr. or even I, II and III. I know a line of three men named Ben. Grandfather, son and grandson and there is no Jr. or any of the rest. The name is a tradition, but just who is the grandson named after? This may seem like it spells out support for the claim but it really doesn't. It is the reporter making the calim and all other tabloid sources seem to have picked up from that.--Mark Miller (talk) 01:24, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

The Daily Star cannot be used to source facts in a BLP article. It is a very clear tabloid source repeated in another such source. I am seriously shocked that such shabby sources are the entire argument made for this BLP article subjects naming when the source themselves has contacted an admin about the issue.--Mark Miller (talk) 01:29, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

You can be seriously shocked as much as you want, I am equally seriously shocked that the say-so of one editor trumps the things reliable sources report (and your interpretation of the New Zealand source is stretching the imagination to the limit). Are you claiming that that reporter actually invented the name, his mother's reaction to it, and so on? And that that just happens to coincide with the story the Daily Star gives? Right... Fram (talk) 19:25, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

But it makes more sense to continue this discussion at either Talk:will.i.am or that the BLPN or RSN noticeboard. Fram (talk) 19:27, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

It makes sense to discuss this here where you brought it up Fram. What I am saying is the New Zealand source is a single source that looks to have been repeated. I am saying the Daily Sun is unacceptable to source facts as a tabloid source and that it looks like the NBC Entertainment source is only referencing the Daily Sun Story. I am saying the argument and the sources used for the current name are weak. That is what I am saying.--Mark Miller (talk) 01:20, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

VikiHərəkat in Azerbaijan

Jimbo, do you personally endorse the upcoming efforts of VikiHərəkat? Will the Wikimedia Foundation support or oppose this program, do you think? - 2001:558:1400:10:6DA9:A36E:581C:DA12 (talk) 12:53, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

I know nothing about it. I know no one involved. There is no chapter in the Azeri language region. I have never heard of "VikiHərəkat". I do not know its organizing principles, foundational rules, organizational structure, funding, leadership, membership, or anything else about it. Therefore, it would be irresponsible of me to voice an opinion about it. If you take a genuine interest in the issue, I recommend that you find people who speak English and Azeri and invite them to come here to discuss it.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 13:51, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Someone should contact them and point out that using the Wikipedia name and Logo without permission is a breach of copyright... AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:55, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Are they though? That's a news report - it's perfectly fine for a news report to use our name and logo. And to be clear, I think you meant to say "trademark violation".--Jimbo Wales (talk) 14:50, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Um, right you are - trademark. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:01, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

For info: Viki Hərəkat; the English language page of its parent organistation. Formerip (talk) 15:02, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Dear all, I am the head of the project's parent organization - AGTA. VikiHerekat has in no way used Wikipedia logo or stylized name in any way. Well before the launch of the project (in April) we started correspondence with Wikimedia Information Team and later Trademark team to avoid any trademark violation. We are building our trademark-related activities on guidelines from Trademark team. That is, we are planning to only use unchanged screenshot of Wikipedia content in the manuals that we are preparing on how to use wikipedia. We have nowhere associated this project with Wikimedia either. Mr Wales, I understand that you might be unaware, but the Foundation I believe is aware, as I noted we started correspondence back in April. At least trademark section knows quite a lot about our project. Unfortunately, Trademark section has not replied to my August 2 email where I gave the details of the project, including all components of it. I would be happy to answer any questions regarding the project. Again, we'll in no way violate Wikipedia principles, including trademarks. Jabism1 (talk) 04:29, 7 September 2013 (UTC)Ismayil Jabrayilov

Hi Ismayil. I think some users of English Wikipedia are nervous or even suspicious about the idea of government money supporting Wikipedia content. This may be a well-founded suspicion or it may be based on misunderstanding. I do not know.

Perhaps it would help if you could say a bit about whether there are limits to what sort of content AGTA can support. I'm aware, for example, that there was controversy to do with the venue for the 2011 Eurovision. Could you imagine it causing any issues for your organisation if a volunteer wanted to add content about that? Or could they just do so freely, with the content being determined by ordinary processes of consensus etc? Or could content end up being shaped by other considerations? Are there any other topics where it might be tricky. Formerip (talk) 11:18, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Let me explain one small instance. AGTA will in no way interfere with the content contributed by the users. It is up to local admins to decide what content needs to be kept or removed. Our intention is just to help those, who want to be involved in Wikipedia, and improve their skills in doing so. We'll encourage the youth potential of the country to spend their leisure time for such a useful cause. We won't pay somebody to contribute to Wikipedia or hire notebooks or employees to do so. We'll bring them together in trainings, train them and encourage them to continue their activities in wikipedia. Again, we don't shape contents, we explain them how the content is made, its principles, technical issues etc. Thank you for your interest. Jabism1 (talk) 19:58, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. That's a clear answer. Formerip (talk) 20:56, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

On my Block Appeal, which You Agreed to Hear

Hi Jimbo, you told me here ten days ago "To the banned user - I will look into this early next week. It may be helpful to email me since discussion on-wiki is likely to be problematic for you." I emailed you three times (the wikia address listed at your page) got only radio silence. I'll get to my appeal straight away, but let me remind you to the other person that was frustratedly trying to email you on the child protection matter, which is no doubt more important than me (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jimbo_Wales/Archive_141#My_email). I think in his case you've mistakenly criticized him for not being specific enough, but you failed to see that the policy prohibits stating specifics publicly. It says hush hush and email ArbCom. While I'm at it, I think you're wrong that Kiefer.Wolfowitz (talk · contribs)'s ban has nothing to do with his child protection efforts. It's right there in the case. You say he's a serial personal attacker and child protection is the smoke screen, I say vice-versa.

As for me (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jimbo_Wales/Archive_140#Appeal_-_was_formerly_titled_.22Can_an_Arbitrator.27s_Block_be_Overturned.22) I'm not "banned" as I understand it, I am permanently blocked by an arb, Timotheus Canens who alleged sockpuppetry, in his capacity as an admin. There is a second arb, Silktork, that declined my appeal on his suspicion that I am a mysterious previously-ArbCom-sanctioned editor whom he'll not identify, which means of course it's literally impossible for me to refute. I was unblocked on detailed and explained research by bureaucrat Nihonjoe, but that was kidnapped by the self-selected blocklovers at WP:AN/ANI, who subjected me to some sort of popularity contest, which I lost (though not by consensus).

The block persists therefore, as far as I can tell, on the authority of Timotheus Canens. It was a shock block, prior to it I had never been so much as warned. My record was sparkly clean. He provided neither warning nor discussion nor explanation of his block for more than a year. WP:ADMIN says the admin must communicate. Finally he pointed to my words in my very first edit: "I had a previous Wikipedia account but I'm switching to this because of privacy considerations," meant to him, "sock." Since sockpuppets are known for deception, it's a little strange to be so indicted on the basis of my honesty. In closing, you have publicly signaled your willingness to consider my appeal. Can we get on with it, or have you changed your mind? This is Folton Fosmic (replace "F" and "F" with "C" and "C").

PS: All, any of my edits, regardless of content, is in imminent peril of revert, delete, and erase ("oversight"). Jimbo agreed to this conversation. If the WP:AN/ANI crowd stomps on this, consider reverting with a "wait, let's hear him out."

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.254.182.47 (talk • contribs) 14:37, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment): Colton had only maybe 100 edits before he was blocked. none looked particularly bad. perhaps more or less edits such as any newish user would make. his suspected sock-puppets category consists solely of IP's as well... no confirmed socks, no other SPI cases involving users.... perhaps allow the standard offer? -- Aunva6^{talk - contribs} 18:59, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Colton Cosmic's appeal was discussed fairly recently at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive792#Unblocking of Colton Cosmic. Favonian (talk) 19:15, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

read it. as I understand it, the re-blocking was due to procedural reasons more than anything. he is also still entitled to an appeal with jimbo. I supposed jimbo will have to consult with the original blocking admin, as there may be non-public evidence. as far as public evidence goes, I see none for the original block. but still, it's up to jimbo to decide everything here. -- Aunva6^{talk - contribs} 20:58, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Arbcom, not ANI, seemed to have made the decision to uphold the original block. Their decision was explained in part in this edit, where User:SilkTork said inter alia, "I approached the admins involved in his block and established that there was reason to believe this was a particular returning banned user. In discussion with Colton Cosmic he agreed that he was a returning user, but declined to reveal his previous account(s). He was informed that without that information ArbCom would not be able to overturn his block. He accepted that decision. He preferred not to be able to edit Wikipedia than to reveal his previous account". If this has changed, presumably Colton Cosmic needs to let Jimbo (or arbcom?) know about that. This is the voice of the Mysterons, currently posting as --Demiurge1000 (talk) 05:10, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

I am pleased that you two cared enough to examine my case, thanks. Aunva6, I think the "standard offer" puts me in a position where I accept a six months block and come back with an humble apology for socking and a pledge never to do so again, and hope some administrator takes mercy on me. The problem is I didn't sock, so I would have to lie. I'm not without fault, I was uncivil a couple times, but I didn't sock. You call it "non-public," but what you're really saying is that there may be "secret" evidence against me. It's Silktork that said that, but when I write back "no, I'm not Mr. X, I was never sanctioned, tell me who you're referring to and I'll try to prove I'm not him" he goes silent. I'm not Mr. X. Is secret evidence, thus irrefutable by the blockee, wikijustice? Silk finds it "reasonable." Demiurge1000, yeah you're going back as well to Silktork's nebulous Mr. X. I'm not #$%^*ing Mr. X. I feel like Saddam Hussein trying to prove I don't have WMDs. It's all just like I said in my very first edit[30]. I switched to this account from my former one with sparkly clean block record because of privacy concerns. What Silktork says, that you quoted above, I'm not saying he's dishonest about it, but that is not how I perceived it. If you look at my talkpage he corrected his wording twice already, but it still needs work because I didn't "agree with him" that I was a "returning user," he *agreed with me* because I said so long before in my first edit (see link above). There was never any deal offered that if I revealed my previous account, and it was clean, that I'd be unblocked. It was more "I'm not even going to consider your appeal until you tell me your previous account." But like I said I switched because of privacy concerns. Plus, I didn't think that was *ArbCom's* position like you say, I naively thought the others were reading and would consider me on the totality of my case. But it was just Silktork signing his decision in my blocklog "ArbCom." To further establish my position here on a logical basis, my revealing of my previous account would not disprove I'm Mr. X (how would it?!) it just gives the snoopy sniffers something else to plug into checkabuser.

To Jimbo and everyone else, you've heard enough of the sock detective stuff above, so what are my accomplishments as an editor and what would I do if unblocked? I did I say though can't prove a substantial amount of content work in my previous account, there are four or five articles I authored that are the top Google result and another six or seven where I drastically improved and overhauled what was already there and those are the top Google results, and I can go look at them now and yeah those are jointly-written but a lot of my contribution there is enduring. In my current account (I'd type the name but Kww is block-filtering it for raw IPs, see my sig below) I had little time but at least authored Rain City Superhero Movement which is the number one Google result and linked directly by Slate and other mainstream news sources. I initiated community processes like WP:3DO and researched obscure policy for good faith talkpage discussion on articles I worked on. You can see this stuff in my edit history. After that yeah I got trapped in WP:AN/ANI/and ArbCom's bickering and sickening orbit, but I didn't have any choice about that. You can't blame me for not contributing enough solid content work while the administrative culture is wiping out my ability to edit at all. Once upon a time I edited a range of my interests, and I always will try to, but if unblocked I intend to edit policy because I see there's a critical need there to debloat it and improve it. This is Koulton Kousmic (replace "Kou" and "Kou" with "Co" and "Co"). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.236.1.247 (talk • contribs) 16:12, 7 September 2013‎

the thing with policy is that you need to establish consensus that is more... developed... thatn consensus in articlespace usually is. i.e. an RfC needs to be done before major changes.... -- Aunva6^{talk - contribs} 07:05, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

This was also mentioned at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive251#Unblock request of User:Colton Cosmic, but of course, in classical Wikipediot fashion, the community wrote it off as some WP:POINT violation by myself, knowing full well this will keep coming back again and again and again and again and again.

It's very simple, folks. In order to shut this person up, the community must be willing and able to unblock him. In fact, that pertains to quite a few other unfortunate users who have blocked or banned as well. Some people need to wake up and realize that blocks and bans are absolutely meaningless, and that you all need to either deal with or put up the issues raised at hand. --MuZemike 05:39, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Save WP from stupidity

This could expose WP to a lot of publicity: The Pixar Theory, if it comes out we have an article on such a stupid topic. Kitfoxxe (talk) 19:46, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Among our 4.3 million articles are many about topics that can be considered "stupid". A topic can be both stupid and notable. "It's stupid" is not a generally accepted argument in favor of deleting an article. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 21:10, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

There is aldo an active AFD running so I don't see why we need help here.--64.229.165.126 (talk) 23:05, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

• Problem is many said Keep per wp:GNG: The notability guidelines, at wp:GNG, are obviously too hollow, which has led to multi-week confusion where several users think "The Pixar Theory" as extremely notable, independently, without considering wp:NOTNEWS, due to mention in several sources on a few days. There needs to be a better nutshell, condensed rule which helps users to see when a topic is not *independently* notable, or might be a one-off fan fiction covered by the newspapers on a slow news day. -Wikid77 (talk) 23:48, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

The pro-GNG position for keeping the content isn't wrong. GNG tells us it is possible to cover the topic, and we should. The problem is something different: making a special article for one particular opinion about the interpretation of the films is a "POV fork" that unnecessarily showcases that one point of view and separates it from the others. As a rule, many items of similar content, each passing GNG, can and should be lumped together into an article when there is space to fit them all, so that readers can more readily learn the topic as a whole. But I don't see Wikipedia being humiliated because we cover it, even if the article is kept; nor should we lose the information - just organize differently. Wnt (talk) 01:39, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

User:DGG can probably explain to you better how easy it is to abuse GNG to keep inane stuff emanating from the silly season just because some crappy blog or failing newspaper wrote about it. The better test is to ask if any serious encyclopedia, even a specialized one, would have such an entry. Someone not using his real name (talk) 10:56, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

See WP:NOTPAPER - Wikipedia is not like other encyclopedias. There's nothing wrong with creating a compilation of all silly season entries; think of that as a (sub)encyclopedia specialized on slow news, as long as they're not routinary. (Also, there's no need why WP has to be a serious encyclopedia *only* - non-serious topics are also part of all human knowledge, as people may want to learn about them). Diego (talk) 12:27, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

• I'm a fairly hardcore deletionist, but if the sourcing supports an article, there's really nothing wrong with the topic. Six degrees of Kevin Bacon may seem a bit silly as well, but it is widely-covered and discussed. Tarc (talk) 12:59, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

• I'm with Tarc on this one. I have no strong opinion about this particular article, but if there's enough coverage of the question, then there's no reason for it not to have an article. But I'm also inclined to be persuaded by Wnt that this is likely something that should simply be a short paragraph in the Pixar entry.
• Here's the thing - I heard this idea, that all the Pixar movies are in the same universe, at a party or from a friend or something. It's a notion that is circulating and which is, apparently, false. So there is public value in debunking the myth. Yes, it isn't as "serious" a topic as many others, but it seems relatively harmless.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 15:13, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

• It was implied above I would certainly reject the article. As I have indeed said before, we cover only topics that someone would reasonably expect to find in an encyclopedia. But there is a level of importance for inane topics where we do have to cover it, because people look here for even the absurdities of the world--just as Tarc and Jimmy said. We are certainly not an exclusively "serious" or academic encyclopedia in the 19th century sense, but a contemporary internet encyclopedia--our world is different from theirs. I do not consider myself qualified to judge in this area, and it's the sort of judgment where we have to go by consensus at the individual case, because there's no way of writing a firm rule. User:MichaelQSchmidt has made some comments at the AfD about how to cover it by merging, and for Hollywood topics or anything related, I generally follow his advice. DGG ( talk ) 15:19, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

• Having myself worked with both Disney and Pixar animators, I know how their animators are encouraged/expected to remain true to an internal consistency across all the company's animated projects, and how certain concepts and themes intentionally connect their various projects... many time as tongue-in-cheek in-jokes. Disney has been doing this for years as a marketing tool... the more subliminal, the better. However, I also understand that any personal knowledge of the truth or not of the Negroni "hypothesis" is not a valid source, and can only act to encourage searches for clues published in other media. We might hope that if the media continues to bounce the Negroni concept around, we may well find a "big reveal" eventually made public. Wikipedia can, at the very least, acknowledge the "thesis topic" has received coverage. Even if not in its own article, writing of it within one of the many Pixar articles as a "published opinion receiving wider inspection" would seem sensible. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 16:46, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
• To the above. I'm eagerly waiting for the Wikipeida article on Monroe Isadore (or at least the death thereof), seeing that Wikipedia is a newspaper aggregation after all. Someone not using his real name (talk) 21:36, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
• If we have an article like this, what's next? An article on the theory that the album Dark Side of the Moon is in synch with the Wizard of Oz? Or an article called Paul is dead? What would people think about Wikipedia then? Oh, wait... (Seriously, I "voted" to keep The Pixar Universe and merge The Pixar Theory into it. You can only have so much fun...) Neutron (talk) 23:32, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

FonGenie, et al

Jimbo, did you know that FonGenie is an online Software as a Service (SaaS) company enabling retail and small business to turn telephone calls from customers into sales? According to Wikipedia, it is loaded with easy-to-implement features from the Web, FonGenie allows business owners to create and monitor on-the-fly interactive daily specials and promotions for customers to hear. That's not spam, either. That's a genuine Wikipedia article, brought to life by the well-rounded editor, User:Nizmoamg. Then again, that editor is hardly different from User:Subratadhara, except maybe not as passionate about FonGenie as Subrata is about A2Zapps, which is a service that sends information proactively via a real-time news stream. Users can follow coworkers and data to receive broadcast updates about project and customer status. Users can form groups and post messages on each other's profiles to collaborate on their work. But wait, there's more! We'll throw in User:Jopgro, who wants you to know that the van der Veen brothers are the first to use their technique for customer service applications. It applies to all communication in the application: customers receiving an email can switch to a chat conversation within seconds - and the other way around. The van der Veens' Casengo software offers more options, such as a built-in Knowledge Base that can be filled with any information a customer would want or need to know about. Now how much would you pay? If you act now, we'll throw in User:Mooreevan, who rounded out Wikipedia by publishing the fact that the free version of FMYI provides file sharing, tasking, messaging, calendar and event sharing, customer support, search labels, tiered permission levels and email notifications and reminders. The paid versions may additionally include team tasking, custom importing, scheduled letters, surveys, advanced searching, topic tagging, post by email and heavily restricted permission settings for extranet usage, depending on the level of customization. Be one of the first 50 callers, and we'll send you not one, but two more COI editors! There's User:Wolf173 and User:Pascalcat, each working within days of each other to bring you the following knowledge: QuoteWerks utilizes a concurrent licensing system. With concurrent licensing, you can have an effectively unlimited number of users, though only X-number of people can actually log on at a given time (X being the number of licenses/seats). Real-time licenses use a reserved concurrency model. Whenever a user on the network uses the real-time data module, a license is reserved for that user and is not released until the user exits QuoteWerks. The number of real-time licenses does not need to match the total number of QuoteWerks licenses. So, for example, in a 2-user installation of QuoteWerks with a single Real-time license, if user 1 logs into QuoteWerks and uses the Real-time pricing first, user 2 will not be able to use Real-time pricing until user 1 logs out of QuoteWerks. And let's not forget User:CPB99! Without him, we'd never know that Quosal allows salespeople from virtually any industry to create accurate, high-quality quotes and/or proposals, and integrates with online distributors, CRM software and accounting platforms to reduce the time of the sales cycle. Whew! And that's just a random selection from Category:Customer relationship management software! I guess what we're all trying to say, Jimbo, is thank you, thank you, thank you for keeping Wikipedia free of advertising, so that article content is never beholden to the POV of the third-party advertiser! NPOV all the way, now and forever! - 2001:558:1400:10:65A8:CE7E:903A:3988 (talk) 16:24, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

• Try AfD for each page: Indeed, "Category:Customer relationship management software" (CRM products) has over 100 pages, but I think the coverage of a product should span multiple years, rather than just major newspapers announcing a new product over 1-2 months. A key question is: "When is coverage about a product really just another source about the company, rather than an indication of separate notability for the product as a separate article?". Then redirect each product name back into the parent company page. -Wikid77 23:57, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

many of these pages are about the company, so redirecting them there is not the solution. the capabilities of a product are encyclopedic information, up to a point. I think the best distinction is whether the information is of interest to a general reader coming across the mention of the subject &wanting to know what it does, rather than only to a prospective purchaser. DGG ( talk ) 02:09, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Really? Call me crazy, but I'd add another distinction: is the information true? Take FonGenie's "easy-to-implement features" for instance. Are they "easy as pie" or "easy as falling off a log"? There's a big difference and I'd like to see a peer-reviewed scientific study proving which it is. Heck, maybe they're even "easy as 1-2-3" or "so easy a cavemen can do it"; there are a lot of subtle distinctions here and I think some refs to qualified professional easyologists would be in order. Of course, these details may not be of interest to the general reader. The general reader probably only needs to know if operators are standing by and if she should act now. Sheesh. Herostratus (talk) 12:30, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Way to go, Herostratus. You get the point. As for Wikid77's suggestion to Try AfD for each page, that would suggest an intrinsic belief that we can AfD our way to a better Wikipedia. I have already concluded that's a dubious belief. If your house is infested with hundreds of flies, it's rather silly to suggest as a solution capturing a few of them and clipping their wings off. (That'll show 'em!) Rather, wouldn't it be better to locate the hunk of rotten, maggot-infested mutton that sits on the floor in the kitchen, and get rid of it first, before trying to clear the home of the infestation? Please don't ask me which Wikipedia person or policy is being represented by the rotting meat. Smart people can figure that out for themselves. - 2001:558:1400:10:11EA:9A92:972:219C (talk) 17:09, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Where is your response, Mr. Wales?

Mr. Wales, Friday came and went, but three's no response from you even in my spam folder.50.174.76.70 (talk) 02:46, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

A few more days. Baby at home. :-) I'm gong to Mexico tomorrow and will have a significant period of uninterrupted work from my hotel room there so I expect to catch up on several things.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 11:49, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Youre going to be in my neck of the woods? (Mexico) Work or vacation?Thelmadatter (talk) 15:59, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Work. Mexico City. Speaking at a conference, dinner with the speaker/hosts, and a wait to get on my flight to come back. Could squeeze in a quick meeting but as you see, I'm going to get in trouble if I don't catch up on some work! :-)--Jimbo Wales (talk) 17:13, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

the shoe has fallen

I will begin reviewing this ArbCom case by reading over the case itself, talk pages, and as much of the linked evidence as seems relevant. I will read over the arbcom email discussions relevant to this case. I will review policy cited by ArbCom. At that time, I will ask specific questions of ArbCom and parties to the case as I think are necessary to clarify my understanding. There are a few things that need to be kept in mind: An appeal is not a rehearing of the case. The point of the appeal is not for me to substitute my judgment of the facts nor my opinions for ArbCom's. An appeal is a constitutional safeguard to ensure that ArbCom is not stepping beyond it's scope and authority, and not engaging in patently irrational decisions. Those two taken together mean that I will not overturn or modify an ArbCom decision based solely on a sense that I would have, myself, voted differently were I a member of ArbCom. Finally, please know that I take this part of my work very seriously. In the long run, I hope that we invent a better system of checks and balances that doesn't involve me, but at the present time, my final review of ArbCom decisions is a valuable part of the overall process. There is no other realistic check on the power of ArbCom. What I would like to see in the long term is something like a set of lower courts and then an upper court of appeals. Such a system would provide the checks and balances that our current system provides, but without it depending on one person (me).--Jimbo Wales (talk) 10:01, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Kindly note that the ArbCom has, indeed, made a procedurally and factually flawed decision. Per my email and per the discussions thereon, I request a full and impartial review by you thereon. Including a statement by an ArbCom member that quoting Teddy Roosevelt shows a "general attitude" problem, the findings by the original complainant that I was not culpable, and noting that I am basically on Wikistrike and have been away from that general topic area, other than a moderated discussion, for more than six months already. Ave atque vale Collect (talk) 12:03, 5 September 2013 (UTC) AGK has displayed quite an anti-intellectualism streak in recent Arbcom cases. I do not have time to go diff-hunting right at this moment, but IIRC he recently chastised someone for using a Latin phrase. Tarc (talk) 14:11, 5 September 2013 (UTC) Yeah Arbcom in general is a ridiculous mess these days. Kumioko (talk) 14:25, 5 September 2013 (UTC) Latinists unite. Salvio Let's talk about it! 14:34, 5 September 2013 (UTC) Count me among one of the biggest supports of Arbcom. I think they are over-worked, and generally under-appreciated. They take on the toughest situations, and try their best. That said, I'm dumbfounded at how the Tea Party case turned out, specifically (though not exclusively) the sanction against Collect. I had not followed that case while in progress. I knew it existed, but the first time I looked at it was after I saw the request for appeal by Collect. I decided to trace through the case, to see if I could understand how the committee reached their sanction. I traced through my observations at a talk page post to NW. Short version, I saw virtually nothing in the evidence, and virtually nothing in the workshop, so I was puzzled by the strong sanction. The response, and I quote: I think that for the large part, the evidence and workshop phases were ignored in this case The entire quote, in case someone feels my excerpt was out of context. I think that for the large part, the evidence and workshop phases were ignored in this case. I found some helpful things there, but honestly I just set aside some amount over time over a few weeks and read all of the talk page of the articles. I can't comment if others did the same or not but I would suspect that they did. I found that the evidence provided was good but not all encompassing. This was an interesting case, one which I was not especially enamored about (either the initial community's response or our actions). I will understand why, when all is said and done, people will label this as the worst case of 2013. But most Arbitrators also weren't given a ton to work with. We had to come up with the proposed decision functionally from scratch, and those don't end up going that well. I'm comfortable with your assessment with this as a process failure, but I'm not sure if it could have gone that much better. As for where this discussion should go...WT:A/R or the proposed decision page. Take your pick. In some fairness, the sanction itself listed some diffs, but I find them short of compelling. I think some discussion about process is in order.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 14:48, 5 September 2013 (UTC) Process looks like "Ban them all and let Satan sort 'em out": I think the lessons from the well-known concept of "proportional punishment" (see: Britannica online) should be noted, and change the process to have specific limits on sanctions. So, "Let the punishment sanction fit the crime". Then, if someone complains how they were topic-banned while an opponent user was not, then show the counting of violations in the logged edits. Now, if ArbCom is too busy to create a shedule of the "proportional sanctions" measured to fit the level of policy violations, then perhaps others would compile a list for them. Otherwise, it looks like machine-gun justice. -Wikid77 (talk) 15:26, 5 September 2013 (UTC) Sanctions on Wikipedia are not (supposed to be) punitive, so "let the punishment fit the crime" is not apt. Which means more than just striking the word. Diffs from two editors can show very similar behaviour, yet different sanctions for each can be merited based on the context and the amount of disruption each is causing. That's not meant particularly in reference to this case, just saying. Formerip (talk) 16:06, 5 September 2013 (UTC) As vocal as I have been about the problems with Arbcom, cases like this show Arbcom as their own worst enemy. Few could do more to hurt their reputation or their purpose than they can do by themselves. Additionally and has been pointed out by others having an indefinate topic ban will stay with the editor for as long as they are here. Wiki never fogives and never forgets so Collect will always be marked due to this strange and inappropriate determination by Arbcom. Kumioko (talk) 16:24, 5 September 2013 (UTC) a second party to the case seeks redress I would also like to request an impartial and thorough review of the following, faulty aspects related to the decision against me and imposed sanctions. Though I first questioned AGK regarding his FoF against me on August 22, after an IP had pointed out that there was a discrepancy, and NYB suggested that AGK respond on August 23 to my comments on the PD talk page, AGK refused to reply publicly on the PD talk page, posting this on September 2 I did respond privately to Newyorkbrad, as I am sure he can verify if you wish to ask him. AGK [•] 11:17, 2 September 2013 (UTC) That was posted in this section of the page Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Tea_Party_movement/Proposed_decision#Somewhat_less_than_gratifying_proceedings_produced_some_questionable_results and was followed by emails, etc., AGK provided a reply in that section today--after the case was closed--in which he asserts that the "sound argument(s) about article content" I am accused to have ignored exist within the sources themselves. Of course, that seems to represent a judgment being made by an arbitrator on content, but more importantly, it amounts to a bit of sophistry insofar as the charge of misconduct relating to my ignoring sound arguments must be premised on interaction that occurred between Wikipedia editors working on an article. There are no conduct issues between me and the sources, conduct issues only occur between editors. The only interaction in the cited diff is of me agreeing with an assertion made by another editor. I have posted a reply discussing these points, and also on AGK's talk page User_talk:AGK#Waiting. A couple of other related comments are found in the section Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Tea_Party_movement/Proposed_decision#Snarky_Comments as well as the section Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Tea_Party_movement/Proposed_decision#Does_the_FoF_stating_...has_ignored_sound_arguments_about_article_content_involve_a_judgment_on_content.3F. Though I made some mistakes in editing the related pages, my efforts were largely aimed at bringing sourcing issues to the surface on that article, to which end I strove to create content based on the statements found in reliably published sources, without bias, political or otherwise. The sanction against me is excessive, and carries the stigma of an indefinite topic ban. If the FoF falsely alleging that I ignored sound arguments about article content were deleted, what would the remaining FoF indicate. Note that I have also addressed two of the other FoF against me in the section Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Tea_Party_movement/Proposed_decision#FoF_12:_Ubikwit --Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 15:39, 5 September 2013 (UTC) AGK has collapsed the thread on his talk page [31]--Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 18:49, 5 September 2013 (UTC) One other aspect of the voting and decision that has been gnawing at my conscience to be addressed relates to another arbitrator: Courcelles. The concerns I have with respect to Courcelles are not of the same caliber as those related to AGK, and pertain to a perception of bias that might indicate a COI (of sorts) due to an interpersonal relationship he'd established with her during past interaction on Wikipedia with Malke. His rush to judgement against me coupled with the following apparent contradictions in his statements and actions and are the basis for my concern. Votes to support the FoF against meat 16:14, 20 August Votes to topic-ban me at 01:01, 22 August Makes response to Malke request stating that Remedies related to you are the last thing I need to vote on, and, to be perfectly honest, I need to go through the evidence one more time before figuring those out on 01:39, 22 August. Responds to my query on his talk page regarding the time frames of his votes and the apparent bias indicated thereby that Most of AGK's newer FoF's were written several days before they were published on-wiki, on the internal arbwiki. A few of us, myself included, reviewed them before they were posted on 05:27, 23 August. So the question I have is, in light of the fact that even though myself and others had provided fairly strong evidence on the Evidence and Workshop pages of repeated behavioral problems demonstrated by Malke on the TPm article since 2010, when she was first sanction in relation to her editing conduct on that article, why would Courcelles be the first to cast a vote on my FoF within a day after it was posted, but tell Malke--whose FoF had been posted earlier and against whom evidence had been introduced since the case first opened--that the last thing he needed to do was vote on her FoF, etc.? And then he cast the sole vote opposing sanctions against her.--Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 21:39, 5 September 2013 (UTC) Party 3 I also don't see this is a proportionate response, although I believe the evidence (although not the evidence presented in FoF 12) supports the conclusion that Ubikwit is WP:NOTHERE to create an encyclopedia. (In other words, what Ubikwit wanted added was in the sources he found, but was contradicted by other reliable sources.) I actually wasn't going to "appeal" my sanction, although I think it unjustified. If Ubikwit's appeal is to be considered, I ask that all the topic bans (but not interaction bans) be reconsidered. I think the failed motion, although not "justice", would have been a worthy experiment. The current situation is not, because of the large number of subjects considered by some to be related to the Tea Party movement. (In fact, some of the edit warring was in regard the question of whether subjects are related to the TPm, and whether that should be stated in Wikipedia's voice. In the case of living persons, WP:BLP may require that some of the "edit warring" there be reconsidered.) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:56, 5 September 2013 (UTC) If by failed motion, you mean the motion to topic ban the gang of 14, I just explained here why I felt this would be a bad idea as proposed, but could, with a wee bit of effort, be turned into an acceptable approach.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 18:32, 5 September 2013 (UTC) Statement by WTF do you people think you are doing? Is Jimbo's talk page suddenly RFAR.2? Do any of you seriously believe he or the board or the WMF are ever going to wade in and undo an arbcom decision? Beeblebrox (talk) 18:51, 5 September 2013 (UTC) I for one don't but I do hope that if enough people complain that Jimbo, the WMF or the Arbcom themselves will fix the problems that have been addressed over and over and over with the Arbcom process. Kumioko (talk) 18:54, 5 September 2013 (UTC) Policy is policy. [[32]]--Cube lurker (talk) 19:14, 5 September 2013 (UTC) I suspect that needs some updating. I wouldn't presume to speak for Jimbo, but I have a very hard time imagining him having the time or inclination to thoroughly review a prolonged arbcom case with an eye towards overturning it... Beeblebrox (talk) 19:07, 5 September 2013 (UTC) I agree, as far as I know Jimbo nor the WMF has ever overturned an Arbcom case and all indications are it would never happen. IMO, we may as well take that out of the policy because its just taking up space. Kumioko (talk) 19:10, 5 September 2013 (UTC) There's a process.[[33]]--Cube lurker (talk) 19:12, 5 September 2013 (UTC) No, WTF do you think your doing, Beeblebrox? On what authority do you to attempt to deny the editors party to the case at hand the right to make an appeal here, as provided for in policy. I take affront at your offensive remarks, even though I have never interacted with you on this website before. Do not impinge my rights because you think you have to be a cheerleader for Arbcom, or whatever your actually motivation is. I believe that Mr. Wales is the individual here that has the authority to decide whether or not the appeal(s) have merit. Once he makes that call, we move on. As I and others have stated, however, blogs and other public forums are available for addressing the kangaroo court proceedings just conducted by Wikipedia's very own Arbcom, under the auspices of an undergraduate wanna be attorney. Am I laughing??? You're damn right I'm laughing! But that is only because I've had a couple of whiskies to help ease my mind regarding the amount of time and effort I've poured into the issue at hand. Otherwise I'd be crying.--Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 19:16, 5 September 2013 (UTC) My only motivation was to point out the absurdity of trying to appeal here. It's not going to accomplish anything. If an arbcom decision is driving you to drink I would strongly suggest you take a prolonged wikibreak. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:20, 5 September 2013 (UTC) Well, OK, but you need to appreciate the amount of duress and stress this long, long process has exacted. I like to drink anyway, but prefer it to be under more pleasant circumstances. The point here, is that I am not someone that is going to stand for the type of nonsense to which I have just been subjected, so there will be a response in the public sphere, at Wikipediocracy or a blog I start myself about Wikipedia or maybe simply contributing comments to the blog Snowed has stated he is going to create in relation to this ludicrous case. I am a grown adult, highly educated and a professional, and I don't suffer fools that impinge on my activities lightly at this stage. Mayb Wikipedia should implement a policy that Arbcom members have to have a college degree?--Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 19:26, 5 September 2013 (UTC) Arbcom members need to have a college degree? That sounds like a particularly bad idea lacking any merit♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 19:37, 5 September 2013 (UTC) Actually, Beeblebrox, Jimmy Wales personally is the ONE entity that can constitutionally overrule an ArbCom decision, I do believe. Please do correct me if I'm wrong. I do remember having a good loud grumble that Founder Super Authority wasn't removed from Wikipedias bylaws, or whatever the constitutional document is called, wherever it is located on-Wiki... Carrite (talk) 19:50, 5 September 2013 (UTC) Wikipedia:Role of Jimmy Wales♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 20:03, 5 September 2013 (UTC) So, how about it Jimbo? In the interest of clarifying this point so we don't have to have some massive policy RFC to remove one out-of-date sentence, could you please clarify your position regarding being the "ultimate court of appeals" for arbcom decisions and/or link to any previous statements you may have made regarding this matter? Thanks. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:50, 5 September 2013 (UTC) Just to note that Jimbo indicated in his previous reply to Collect that he does still consider himself an avenue for appeals. I don't see any reason not to AGF that he will approach the appeal with an open mind. Formerip (talk) 19:59, 5 September 2013 (UTC) Jimbo is the Supreme Leader of Wikipedia, he has to approve ArbCom candidates, and he can intervene in ArbCom rulings. :). Count Iblis (talk) 20:58, 5 September 2013 (UTC) Party 4 To the preceding, I can only add this. The following review won't take a lot of time or effort, and strikes right to the heart of the matter. Please review the Findings of Fact regarding Goethean [34] and Xenophrenic. [35] I believe these were the two worst offenders involved in this matter. Indefinite topic bans were appropriate. Next, please compare those two FOFs with the Findings of Fact regarding Collect, [36] Arthur Rubin [37] and myself. [38] The evidence supporting topic bans in these latter three cases is pathetically weak by comparison. And that's before you check the diffs. When you check the diffs, it gets even worse. Much, much worse. An effort needs to be made by Wikipedia leadership to restore something approaching substantive due process in these matters. ArbCom is completely off its tracks. An attempt was made to dispose of this case with six-month topic bans for everyone without bothering with any FOFs. When a loud chorus of editors (including JClemens, a former ArbCom member) objected, ArbCom decided to achieve the same result by going through the motions. Rather than zero FOFs, we have solid FOFs against a few editors who have earned their topic bans, and pathetically flimsy FOFs for everyone else, who received exactly the same sanctions as the worst offenders. Yes, I realize that the central goal of these proceedings is to protect the Wikipedia community. But I suspect that if the results of this become widely known, and editors realize that simply by editing a contentious article in good faith they, too, can be swept up in a mass topic ban like this, there won't be much of a Wikipedia community left to protect. Something resembling fairness has to be applied here. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 06:39, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

When an editor is incorrectly sanctioned by ArbCom, how is she supposed to know that the decision is appealable?Anythingyouwant (talk) 12:19, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

It has always been so, and I assume it says so in the appropriate places. If not, that should be fixed.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 12:26, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes it should. Not being an admin, and not being familiar with the rules for such an appeal, I hope that such a person will check on fix it. Should I make a request to that effect somewhere, and if so where?Anythingyouwant (talk) 12:31, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

I've looked around, and the only thing I can find is the following from the Wikipedia:Banning policy: "While any arbitration decision may be nominally appealed to Jimbo Wales, it is exceedingly unusual for him to intervene." This is very vague. No deadline is mentioned, and the chance of an appeal being heard seems remote at best. If this is the only check on the power of ArbCom, it seems to be merely "nominal", which means "in name only". I don't know how the policy could be more unhelpful about explaining this process. Since this appeal process is operated by you, Jimbo, could you please explain whether there is a deadline for appeal, and whether hearing the appeal is purely discretionary on your part? Thanks.Anythingyouwant (talk) 14:10, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Jimbo, you are needed here, an immense amount is at stake. If the highest and supposedly most careful "court" of Wikipedia treats people in a random harmful way not based on evidence, that says that Wikipedia is a random and vicious place. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 14:41, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

The mention of Jimbo as an appeal is, IMO, merely a procedural rule rather than a functional one. Having been here for years I have never seen an occassion where he has overturned a ruling and I just don't see it happening. Jimbo all but said so above and has said so in the past. Also to North8000, Arbcom is the highest but they haven't been careful in years. Now most of their decisions seem to smack of making it as painful as possible to all parties involved so an Arbcom decision is the last thing anyone wants. Its also essentially a kangaroo court when it comes to editor sanctions because they won't even take a case unless they feel the editor is guilty. So once the case is accepted the editor may as well just logout and go edit somewhere else because its the end anyway. This project seems more and more about process and policy than in what we should be here to do which is make an Encyclopedia. Its all about blogging on talk pages and filling our userpages with Userbox cruft. Kumioko (talk) 15:16, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Kumioko, you have four more userboxes than I have.  :-) Seriously, I agree with most of what you said, sadly. And the situation is worse than that, because an editor can bring a valid case to ArbCom and slip in lots of additional "defendants" who are not the main offenders, but rather are more like people with whom the "plaintiff" has disagreed about content.Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:27, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Agree that the rules and processes are more often used as tools FOR warfare & POV'ing articles, rather than as ways to avoid or fix such. But what happened in this case was even worse, it didn't even meet that low standard of basis. North8000 (talk) 16:04, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

For those that haven't noticed Arbcom has made policy determinations in several cases in the past that stretched the limits of their remit and they haev made policy decisions that were so strange and mysterious that they weren't used before that decision nor since and in fact several seemed targetted to specific individuals as justification to ban them. I have made no illusions about my displeasure for the Arbcom process and I have been very vocal about my opinion that the process needs a substantial overhaul. Among several others in the project I might add. But the committee and in many respoects Jimbo himself seem so far disconnected from the realities of the project its almost as though they aren't even members of the community. There above it, beyond it, over it; there the Wikimen in black. Kumioko (talk) 16:35, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

@Kumioko. While you are quite right in terms of precedent, an appeal here is technically appropriate under Wikipedia's organizational laws. I would look forward to Mr. Wales taking this role seriously, particularly at the current moment, since this edition of ArbCom really seems to have gone off the tracks... I am looking forward to the next round of elections, to be sure. Carrite (talk) 01:40, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Join the ArbCom Reform Party. Count Iblis (talk) 17:47, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Two points. First, the smartass in me wants to say that he always thought the cliche was about the other shoe dropping, not falling. Second, I notice the statement in Jimbo's hatnote about how he would like to see a set of "lower courts" and a court of appeals above them. Honestly, that strikes me as a very good idea. Considering we are getting around time to elect arbs again, I was wondering if there has been any recent discussion about how such a multi-tiered dispute resolution process might work. John Carter (talk) 18:02, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

I had previous thought (and vocalized) support for arbcom because (unlike mob violence places like ANI) it was a more methodical process where evidence was gathered and analyzed, and the subsequent processes were logically built on that. Either I was niave/not familiar or Arbcom has declined, because I saw nothing resembling that process in this case. So theoretically, "lower courts" would be a better alternative to mob violence venues like ANI. So if Arbcom were fixed, such would be a good idea, but it isn't going to be the fix for Arbcom. North8000 (talk) 18:11, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

I wasn't involved in this matter, so I dunno what happened here, but I have seen that recently ArbCom has been at least saying that all they should do is resolve conduct disputes, which I think, by and large, they have probably been, overall, pretty good at. The problem seems to be that, in the power vacuum that exists around here, they have become the de facto final appeal point for all matters of importance, and I don't think even they necessarily like that. If there were other bodies, like lower courts, which could decide some of the less complicated matters or less involved ones, that might in and of itself make it easier for those in ArbCom, because they would probably be allowed to do what they were really created to do, and what I think they primarily want to do, dealing with conduct issues. So, maybe, in a way, if we "fixed" the existing problem that ArbCom has become effectively the first and last "court of appeals" by instituting lower courts for more obvious conduct issues and/or content issues (somehow), I think that probably would fix ArbCom to a degree too. But, admittedly, ensuring that the lower courts themselves work might not be any real walk in the park itself. John Carter (talk) 18:19, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

It's kind of fortunate that dispute resolution has been going on for millennia, and so we have quite a reservoir of history to learn from. And perhaps the centerpiece in Anglo-American dispute resolution is the jury. They do the fact-finding and the convicting, and the judges are only entitled to decide what the rules mean. If you just want to have lower courts and a higher court of appeals, but allow the judges to do all the fact-finding, all the convicting, and all the interpretation of rules, then you may have a workable system, but it won't be anything like our system that developed offline for thousands of years.Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:43, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Really if you think about it the multicourt system Jimbo mentions already exists. We have Dispute resolution, we have the Admin boards like ANI, we also have Arb Enforcement and others. So really we already have the mechanisms in place we just need to revamp the processes to work better and more efficiently. Right now too many of them work to protect their wikipals than to actually do the right thing or follow policy. There are also far too many admins who block first and ask questions later rather than reviewing the facts and then taking action. Frequently the wrong person in a dispute gets blocked because they were the last one to perform an action and the admin didn't bother to look into the whole case first before acting. So its the whole process from top to bottom that needs to be redone, but whats the likelihood of that happening? Zilch! Kumioko (talk) 19:54, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

In response to Anythingyouwant, I think it would be useful if we did have a jury system of some sort. The problem with that around here, of course, is not so much having a separate jury, but having separate competent prosecutors and defense attorneys to function independently of the jury. We do more or less have that as is, although in many or most cases the parties involved play those roles, not always competently. And, honestly, I have serious reservations about whether anyone would actively seek out regularly taking on a role of some sort of official or unofficial "prosecutor" in such jury proceedings. It probably could work if it could get started, but I can't imagine it ever getting started. John Carter (talk) 20:00, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

John Carter, I think we do have lots of prosecutors already, in the form of people who bring complaints to ArbCom. And we ask editors to defend themselves at ArbCom, which isn't so bad if ArbCom is willing to respect the rights of those accused editors. And we also have judges ("arbitrators"). What we don't have is any jury selected randomly from the pool of editors, and all that power that would be wielded by jurors is now instead tossed in the lap of ArbCom. The U.S. has a very robust jury system, not just in criminal cases but also in civil cases (there aren't any prosecutors in the latter unless one considers the plaintiffs as prosecutors-of-a-sort).Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:08, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for the clarification, Anythingyouwant. I think I see your point now. Speaking as someone who, once, admittedly strangely, tried to work as a defense advocate at ArbCom (for someone later banned anyway) for someone who didn't wish to defend themselves, for whatever reason I forget now. I guess the question to my eyes is that, more or less, it looks like the current ArbCom setup has, sort of, the lead arbitrators in a case filling the "judge" role in a sense, and then the remainder serving as a jury. Newyorkbrad, of honestly extremely well-earned reputation, would probably be better able to discuss that than me. I guess I could see a way in which, maybe?, we could perhaps create yet another class of editors by rights, possibly/probably including most admins, at least those who wouldn't be disqualified for some form of potential bias, who might be able to "fill out" a jury on a per case basis. and in a sense I could see some benefit to doing such. However, there might be a very real downside if these individuals don't get full access to the relevant information in the ArbCom mailing list. The downside is, unfortunately, for jurors who might decide to leave the project later, carrying some sort of grudge, they might well go elsewhere and release potentially sensitive information that they got from the mailing list or from the case on some other site, to no real benefit and possibly to the serious damage of the project here. Of course, old arbs could do the same thing, but their smaller number and more thorough review kind of makes that less probable. Vetting potential jurors might be the biggest concern there. John Carter (talk) 22:33, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Hi John Carter. We could get rid of juries in the United States, and just have some full-time government employees do that job instead, but I think something terribly important would be lost, namely a check on the government. I don't see why ordinary editors should not be judged by their peers, but I guess if it were limited to admins (randomly selected) that would still be better than the present set-up which concentrates power very narrowly in the hands of ArbCom. Do most bans by ArbCom involve information that comes in privately on the ArbCom mailing list? I am doubtful about that; such cases would require special treatment, but I don't think that tail should wag the dog (if such confidential info is provided by a "defendant" then it's no problem at all because the "defendant" could thereby waive his right to a jury of ordinary editors).Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:59, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

I've never been on ArbCom, so I honestly don't know. And I wasn't thinking necessarily just admins, but some sort of class which indicates some degree of seniority, maybe like autoreviewer or something. We wouldn't I think want too many newer editors without much of a grasp of policy or guidelines on a jury. But, if we did choose some comparatively infrequent editors without much of a demonstrated commitment to the project, we could well have them drop out of a case they were assigned to if they didn't like it or something similar, which wouldn't be particularly useful. And, unfortunately, again, the question of vetting the candidates might come up. I know a number of people accuse me of some sort of pro-Christian bias, sometimes fairly frequently, which I don't agree with, but that might be an issue if I, who am an admin, might be selected for a jury about something related to the WP:TRUTH of Christianity, or Islam, or, hell, Thelema. Would you, Anythingyouwant, or anyone else, really want to trust the outcome of a case to at least in part a number of individuals whom, factually, we really can't vet in any particularly useful way, except by the extremely limited information we can get from their user pages and edit history? I'm not really sure I would. Also, yeah, I think quite a few of us really committed editors might be, in a way, well, of other-than-usual mental or neurological typicality, whether they declare it or not. I make a bit of a joke comparing myself to Gregory House on my page, and it is a joke, but in other cases it might not be, or it might not even be declared. In real juries the attorneys can check for that sort of thing, but we really can't here.

Like I said, I could see some use to something like this, but I really would want to have some sort of idea what procedures might be available to ensure that the people selected don't wind up being in some cases among the worst possible people to be selected for such a role. John Carter (talk) 23:21, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Sure, I could see screening out editors having less than a thousand article edits, from a jury, to ensure a level of familiarity and commitment. And asking that they promise to abide by applicable rules.Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:33, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

There is actually a lot more possible within the current ArbCom. Cases don't need to be conducted by 10 or more Arbs, 3 is enough. With 3 Arbs who collaborate well in reading through all the evidence, you will actually get far better rulings. This has the additional advantage that for any given case, most Arbs will not have been involved in there, making it possible to have an appeal conducted by previously uninvolved Arbs. Count Iblis (talk) 00:56, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

I think they already divvy up their workload. The point is, if an ordinary editor is editing in a way that he should know very well is against the rules, then other ordinary editors know very well how to recognize and sanction that kind of thing. We don't need a triumvirate to lord over the project, in my opinion. It creates a great danger of systematic bias, lack of care, power trips, elitism, etc.Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:56, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

I have edited the ban policy (to describe how things work, not how they should work).[39]Anythingyouwant (talk) 13:22, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

I'd support the concept, although I'd like to discuss the counts. I have real-world experience with a similar issue - not DR, but close enough. I served on a peer review committee for years, then took over as chair. We had 8-10 members on the committee, and every member reviewed every submission, then supplied a vote. This created a critical path problem, with the length of the process dependent on the last member (We weren't totally stupid, sometimes a member would abstain, but that was viewed as a special circumstance, rather than a usual part of the process). It wasn't that some members were habitually slow, it was that members had areas of interest and expertise, and when reviewing papers outside of their main interest, it was human nature to take longer. It was taking months to get a paper to the point of acceptance or rejection. When I became chair we both doubled the size of the committee, and halved the number of reviewers per paper. When a new paper came in, committee members could sign on, and the first five to sign on, probably those most interested in the subject matter, completed their review. The nominal workload per committee member was a quarter of what it was before although we expected a more complete review given the smaller numbers, and the gross volume was increasing, so the net workload was little changed. However, the process sped up dramatically, as I was no longer hounding the 8th or ninth committee member, who was putting of reading the paper because it bored them to tears. That was probably 20 years ago, but last I checked, they were still largely following the process I put in place.

I see that working well here. While some cases are inherently more interesting than others, surely there will be cases that some committee members dread reviewing. When one is spending volunteer time do the review, and there is a lot of material to review, this naturally drag things out. Why not let five or so memebrs sign on to a case, then they can work on this case and skip a different one in progress. I wouldn't fully compartmentalize, any arb should feel free to check with any other arb to run something by them, even if they aren't on the case, but the general approach would mean, if the committee size was unchanged, that each signs up for roughly half the cases. They would spend more time per case, but probably not double, so it might be a net decrease in work load.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 14:05, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Just my two cents. IMO, the fact that no one takes a look at global NPOV is a problem. As is the fact that cross-article comparisons generally carry no weight.William Jockusch (talk) 16:52, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Wales apparently has no authority to overturn ArbCom findings

The Wikipedia:Banning policy as of today no longer describes the process of appealing a ban to Jimbo Wales. [UPDATE: See that policy for recent changes.] I tried to correct an inaccurate description (which called the appeals "nominal"), but instead the whole thing has now been removed (I objected at the policy talk page but so far without reply). In place of the description is now a redirect to Wikipedia:Arbitration/Policy which merely says: "Remedies may be appealed to, and amended by, Jimbo Wales, unless the case involves Jimbo Wales' own actions." So, only the ArbCom remedies may be appealed, and not the findings of fact or interpretations of policy. This one bare sentence at the arbitration policy page also provides no deadline, and no link, and Wikipedia could scarcely do a better job of preventing people from learning about and defending their appeal rights. But what else is new?Anythingyouwant (talk) 14:39, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Here's what I suggest. Jimbo can vacate some or all of the remedies. I suggest that he should vacate several of these remedies. I suggest that he also has the authority to send the case back to ArbCom — with a recommendation that ArbCom rewrite or vacate the FOFs related to those editors for whom remedies were vacated. Then ArbCom can recommend or impose new remedies based on the rewritten FOFs, and Jimbo can review all that, and approve or reject it. That is probably the most reasonable resolution of this matter. My position on three of the remedies that should be vacated is already very clear, but the Malke and North8000 remedies should also be reviewed. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 20:27, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

To be honest and to the contrary of what some may beleive, he hasn't for a very long time. Back in the early days of the project when he was heavily involved yes, he had that ability; but over the last few years his ability to overturn those rulings has been eroded by his own vocal desire to back away from the projects affairs. Now it would be virtually impossible for him to overturn an Arbcom ruling without receiving heavy backlash from the community and possibly a revolt of the Arbcom themselves. No, he no longer has the authority, he gave it up voluntarily whether we like that or not. Kumioko (talk) 20:58, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

As Jimbo Wales said above, "There is no other realistic check on the power of ArbCom." If there really is no check, that would be very unfortunate. I don't see why there is not more support for a jury-like system. Instead we've got something between France in 1793, Spain in 1500, and England in 1600.Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:35, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

No, we have a website in 2013. We're not a nation-state, we're a volunteer project. And the goal of this project is to build a serious, respectable encyclopedia, not to create the world's first fully functional online judicial system. As far as juries... I'm not a lawyer, but jury selection (at least in the U.S.) isn't simply a matter of picking random people. Prospective jurors are subject to detailed, highly intrusive questioning before they're empaneled. If we seek to translate that process to Wikipedia, then how do we replicate that crucial part of the jury-selection process? MastCell ^Talk 01:58, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

No, I never suggested that the present-day American jury system could or should be replicated within Wikipedia. Did I ever suggest peremptory challenges? The jury system used to be much simpler in this country, and it still is in some other countries. The fact that Wikipedia is a volunteer project rather than a nation-state has not stopped it from having elections, committees, policies, guidelines, and lots of other features of democratic government. In fact, Wikipedia is a corporation, and like all corporations it must choose the form of governance most suited to its needs. It's not every corporation that routinely slimes and smears and blacklists its employees or its volunteer members, and such ought to be done with great care, just as if we were all using our real names here.Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:06, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Anythingyouwant, I don't want to sound discourteous, but I think your knowledge of European legal history is rather scant if you compare Wikpedia's current system to the one in force in France during the revolution: on Wikipedia, all Arbs are elected by the community and their term in limited: we have to be re-elected every two years if we want to keep our seat. It's not like we're a bunch of dictators who have, somehow, seized power while nobody was looking. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 12:17, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

No worries, Salvio, you sound perfectly courteous to me, though a bit mistaken. In France, the National Convention was elected by universal male suffrage, without distinctions of class. It did some very good things, like abolishing slavery in France and its colonies. The National Convention also created the Committee for Public Safety consisting of twelve members of the National Convention who faced reelection every month. That was France in 1793. Not all bad. But when you look at the powers exercised by these bodies, and the checks and balances that were absent, the future after 1793 was not surprising. Incidentally Salvio, I think there were 473 votes in your ArbCom election, out of about 30,000 active English Wikipedia editors making five edits or more a month. Even supposing that you had been elected by thousands, I think checks and balances are still extremely useful.Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:58, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

• I think there's a real lack of perspective about this case. It's not the worst decision ArbCom has ever made. Realistically, it's not even in the top five worst.

  In general terms, the Tea Party case is very similar to the climate-change case. In both, a politically controversial topic had become mired in tendentious and unproductive editing. In both cases, ArbCom cast a broad net in sanctioning active editors—some of whom were clearly unfit to edit here in any capacity, and some of whom were good editors who simply got a bit too caught up in the brawl. We've lost more good editors because of the climate-change case than the Tea Party case (particularly as, despite the usual theatrics, no one shows any intention of actually leaving because of the latter). If Jimbo intervenes here, then I'd expect that a substantial number of ArbCom cases are going to be appealed with a (reasonable) expectation that Jimbo should intervene.

  It's also worth remembering that the Tea Party article was a disaster zone of Superfund proportions. These pages were host to all sorts of editorial misconduct, from edit-warring to stonewalling to disrupting Wikipedia to make a point to total disregard for WP:BLP to total disregard for proper sourcing criteria. ArbCom sanctioned a core of editors who clearly needed to be extracted from the situation, and then a fringe of editors who were not the root of the problem but who exacerbated the unproductive aspects of the situation. One could argue about how widely the net was cast, and whether those editors on the "fringes" should have been let off with a warning, but that's a question of ArbCom's discretion, not grounds for overturning the case with a Jimbo ex machina. MastCell ^Talk 21:24, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Very obviously, there are other options besides leaving everything to ArbCom's discretion versus overturning the entire case.Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:15, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

I'd be less concerned with how wide the net is thrown. Little crabs are still crabs. I think the problem in this case is that Arbcom seems to think it can decide on sanctions in private (either through backdoor communication or individual judgement) and put any old tickbox crap on the decision page. It ought to be accountable and leave an audit trail. If I want to know why a particular editor was sanctioned, it ought to be easy for me to find clear information. But in this case, it's impossible. Formerip (talk) 01:32, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

• I mostly agree with MastCell on this. Some of the topic bans appear based on little and marginal evidence, but it's still better than the omnibus decision they had considered earlier. At least with individual evidence being listed, the editors have more of a chance at appealing after the next ArbCom is elected. Someone not using his real name (talk) 09:51, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

FYI, Wikipedia:Banning_policy#Appeal_of_Arbitration_Committee_decision is back to something like its former self, for now.Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:20, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

That just shows how policy sausage is often made on this wiki. Someone sneaks up a change. See also [40] and parallel discussion. Apparently Jimbo's prerogative to hear appeals is a case of "use it or lose it". Someone not using his real name (talk) 07:58, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

An analysis of the evidence would show that even the worst behaved of editors there needed just a warning, not sanctions. Nothing unusual happened at the article, it was just chugging along in the same sad state of ALL contentious articles. It would show that the whole case started with someone who was in battling (not admin) mode with me (and who was responding to a solicitation) and (only) as a part of that battle lit an wp:ani bonfire which, as ANI's on vague topics all do, became a place of random mob violence. The only thing that could put out the bonfire was transferring it to arbcom. But it was transferred in a way that mis-directed it which arbcom never recovered from. So after Arbcom succeeded twice (in putting out out the bonfire, and in Silk Tork facilitating the most progress ever at the article), instead of stopping then, they continued and snatched failure from the jaws of success. North8000 (talk) 17:41, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Fixing searches for Barret Brown

When I type in Barret Brown in the search box, the only choice i get is Barret Browning. (And even if I write Barret Brown, and press the search icon, then his name is not the first choice, but rather choice number four behind Barret Browning. What can be done to fix this? --Brown shoe yuptidoo (talk) 09:14, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Why is Barret Brown a red link, as of this moment? At this time there is an article about him at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barrett_Brown . --Brown shoe yuptidoo (talk) 09:18, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

It's because you've spelt the name wrong: there are two Ts in "Barrett", not one. The correct link is Barrett Brown. If you type this into the search engine you should have no issues finding the article. — Richard BB 09:18, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

It appears that new user Brown shoe yuptidoo has managed to find the article and add a Norwegian reference. They also added a Norwegian reference to an article about a Kazakh oil company. We don't get many Norwegian editors here. I'm sure they appreciate your help. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 21:37, 10 September 2013 (UTC)