User talk:Jimbo Wales/Archive 190

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 185 ← Archive 188 Archive 189 Archive 190 Archive 191 Archive 192 → Archive 195

On a lighter note...

Jimbo has appeared in a YouTube video about what the world would be like without the internet. [1] Enjoy, everyone. Everymorning talk 21:21, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Oh dear, the fact that there are so many people who don't know what the world *was* like without the internet makes me feel old. It's like when I was a child and I had old fossils telling me what the world was like without TV! Mr Potto (talk) 08:13, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Oxford English Dictionary: new words

This article discusses some of the most recently added entry words in the Oxford English Dictionary.

—Wavelength (talk) 04:47, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Stories (short and sweet)

I have started Wikipedia:Long stories made short (WP:LSMS) and Wikipedia:Bitter stories made sweet (WP:BSMS).
—Wavelength (talk) 03:08, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

I commented at Wikipedia_talk:Long_stories_made_short--S Philbrick(Talk) 14:08, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
Aren't both of these in conflict with WP:TPO? Nyth63 14:16, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
I don't think so. I viewed both LSMS and BSMS as supplemental posts, enabling a reader to skip the long version and read the short, but if it was intended as a replacement, then it would violate the guideline. One might argue, that if not used as a replacement doesn't achieve the purpose of shortening. However if used as a supplement and especially if placed before the long version, as is common with {{nutshell}}, it could be helpful.--S Philbrick(Talk) 14:34, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
A person who has decided to skip the long post in order to read what follows will find the shortened version of the long post if one is there.
—Wavelength (talk) 16:47, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
Sorry, I must have skimmed to quickly and missed the part about it being a supplement, not a replacement. Nyth63 17:24, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
This looks like a recipe for passive-aggressive annoyance.[2] 50.0.136.194 (talk) 02:27, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
It does not need to be such a recipe, and neither does Wikipedia in general.
—Wavelength (talk) 23:49, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
  • I'm sorry, but I simply cannot see any situations where this would be helpful. If one is in the middle of a heated discussion (oh, let's call a spade a spade, an argument) and somebody randomly comes by and implies that one is being "bitter" about something one believes in by repeating the exact same points in an alternative manner, generally one will get more "bitter" rather than calming down. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 23:59, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
A sweetened version of a bitter story is for the benefit of editors who do not want to read a bitter story. If they follow an invitation to participate in a particular discussion, and find a bitter story, they may ignore similar invitations afterward. When controversial articles (Category:Controversies) attract some editors and repel others, there can be bias in the discussions and in the resulting content.
—Wavelength (talk) 01:46, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
  • And, again, that is more likely to lead to more heat than light. Even if used properly (i.e. nobody goes out of their way to upset others by "shortening" or "sweetening" posts; I am sure there will be people who bait by misusing such an idea), that will not defuse issues. If a discussion devolves into fighting over an unrelated issue, it will never get resolved. We all know what people say about good intentions... — Chris Woodrich (talk) 02:45, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
  • It's very difficult for one person to condense another person's argument into a shorter form and still accurately echo what they want to say, and I can't see this idea doing anything other than pouring gasoline on flames however well intentioned. Mr Potto (talk) 08:09, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
* Short and sweet: Non-starter  :-) Carrite (talk) 00:13, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Opinion article from Andrew Lih

Andrew Lih, longtime Wikipedian and journalist professor, has written some words of wisdom about the Wikipedia community and the future.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 23:35, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Wow. All I could think of while reading that was "what can I do to help?". --Guy Macon (talk) 00:20, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
I have a lot of respect for Andrew Lih, but I disagree with his claim that "it’s simply too hard to manipulate complex code on a tiny screen" since the vast majority of my editing in recent years has been on an Android smart phone, using the desktop site. I have had no problem making tens of thousands of edits that way, including this edit, so I am not sure why Andrew makes that claim. It seems the WMF assumes, incorrectly, that editors using smart phones also use the mobile site, and do not even bother to study the experience of editors like me who routinely use mobile devices to edit through the desktop site.
The indisputable truth is that the vast majority of our readers over the years never edit, or have made a only handful of edits. Only a small percentage of people want to commit to editing this encyclopedia though most literate people use it happily. I favor every practical measure to recruit, welcome, train and retain new editors. Certainly that effort should incorporate a realistic assessment of how productive current editors actually use mobile devices in the real world. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 01:11, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
Noted. I may start giving this a try myself. One thing that I'm personally not happy about with the mobile site is that it makes using the site the way an editor uses the site very difficult. It's hard to get to talk pages, to history, to edit. The links are either hidden somehow where I don't see them, or not there at all. I don't know why these product decisions have been made, but I have not gotten involved in complaining about it because, well, there's too much else going on. Inspired by your remarks, it's something I want to learn more about.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 12:09, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
I'm happy to expand on why these decisions were made since I was involved in making them during my time on the Mobile Apps Team (now known as the Readership Department), but it's off-topic for this discussion and would likely be a very long explanation. Let me know if you'd find that useful and I can write something up. --Dan Garry, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 01:46, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
@Deskana (WMF): Yes, please do explain these decisions, and let us know where editors can usefully comment on them. If I'm talking about Wikipedia's reliability I recommend friends to look at an article's talk page and its edit history - but if they're using a mobile the former is inaccessibe other than by typing a search for "Talk:Pagename" and the latter only accessible via a link at the very bottom of the page (and I wanted to check the history of Architecture of Wales today, which took a vast amount of scrolling on a small phone). PamD 12:02, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Andrew's estimated number of core volunteers across all projects is drastically too high and his assertion that there have been seven consecutive years of decline in editor count too pessimistic. In actual fact "three years of decline, followed by a two year plateau, followed by a dip in 2014 and a substantial recovery in 2015" is a more accurate description of the past seven years. Carrite (talk) 05:41, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
Can you show me a simple chart where I can draw the same conclusion that you have, from the data? Which numbers are you using. It strikes me as possible (or even likely) that the results vary to some extent if you look at En-only, Global, various other large languages, small languages, etc. I don't have all the various results memorized.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 12:09, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
The raw data set is HERE. The first two columns need to be normalized to 30 day months to eliminate the fluctuation of "extra" editors topping the 100 edit mark in the 31st day (or failing to get there in the missing last days or day in the short month of February) and then graphed with time on the X axis and number of editors on the Y. Obviously 100 edits per month is doubtlessly not a sufficient count of true "Wikipedians," but even if that understates the size of the true core volunteer community by half, that's far fewer than Mr. Lih contends. I personally think the 100 edits per month count is not too far off, maybe a 50% understatement. Your mileage may vary. A similar data series for 5 edits per month is HERE, which shows a similar general editing trend over the last 7 or 8 years. A data set for 50 edits per month would be illuminating, I think, as would one for a larger number of edits per month, such as 250. In no case can it legitimately be contended that the count of editors has fallen for 7 straight years. Carrite (talk) 05:21, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
It can, depending what you look at exactly. While the decline of global figures has reversed slighty in the last year, that is not true for various large individual wikipedias, in particular the English and the German one. For them the description as 7-8 eight years decline seems entirely correct (data in your second link).--Kmhkmh (talk) 11:38, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Take a month of edits to articles from the "good old days". Analyze each one. Were they plucking low-hanging fruit by filling in popular articles or creating articles that the editor had a personal interest in (e.g., local hometown, species of animal, sports team)? Would the edits be accepted today? Yes, the study would be expensive but at least then you could talk intelligently about the causes of editor decline and find potential solutions. For example, you're likely not going to get the editors who were only here to fill in their favorite sports team's history to stick around and edit an article on Vladimir Bodiansky. --NeilN talk to me 06:04, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
I agree with you that this is very likely at least part of the cause for editor decline, and it's the one cause that we should not worry about very much. In the glorious year of 2005, Wikipedia was already very famous, but also (relative to today) quite empty. So it was easy to jump in and help. However, while I think this point is valid, I don't think it should give us too much comfort because in "similar" languages (with large numbers of speakers and very active Wikipedias) we see similar stagnation in numbers.
It occurs to me that although it's far beyond my personal capacity right now, it should be possible with a bit of work to tease out an approximate answer to this question: to what extent is editor count related to the size of a wikipedia, after controlling for factors such as population. If someone could prove that, consistently, things get harder at 500,000 articles or 1,000,000 articles, that might be comforting.
The danger of being complacent around the "low hanging fruit" effect is that it may cause us to overlook some very important factors that almost certainly matter as well.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 12:09, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
Jimbo Wales, I remember reading that the Dutch Wikipedia had the highest ratio of editors to language speakers, but I have not found the place where I read it, although I have searched in Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Archives.
—Wavelength (talk) 14:36, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
See "Editors per million speakers" at http://stats.wikimedia.org/EN/Sitemap.htm, where the data disagree with my memory. Dutch has a high ratio, but less high than Czech, Swedish, Catalan, Finnish, Armenian, Hebrew, Norwegian, Slovene, Latvian, Estonian, Basque, Esperanto, and others.
—Wavelength (talk) 14:50, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
I retrospect, I suppose that the chart possibly does agree with Dutch having the highest number of articles in relation to the number of speakers, which is closer to the topic of your question.
—Wavelength (talk) 14:57, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
I apologize for my hurried, careless thinking on this occasion.
—Wavelength (talk) 15:06, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

My comments at [3] remain valid. One major problem on Wikipedia is grossly apparent animus held by some editors anent other editors, and the resulting harassment which never gets dealt with properly. By the way "number of edits" is not a valid measure of whether any article is growing or improving, and certainly is not reflective of whether Wikipedia is growing or improving. Collect (talk) 14:25, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

  • Funny, when Mike Godwin started talking about the decline in new editors, the only thing I could think of that coincided with the date of the start of the decline, was the release of the iPhone. Guy (Help!) 16:42, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

I suggest that the growth in the use of smart phones itself is not the issue. I am a bit behind the curve but I use my smart phone more than I did a few years ago. That said, I almost never use it to edit. Despite the observations above, I prefer adding to and from a desktop with three screens. I suppose I should try the experiment but I do not even like editing from a laptop with a single screen so I’m not optimistic that I will be comfortable editing from a smart phone. The insightful event for me was a casual remark by a nephew that he almost never used his desktop computer anymore solely relied on the smart phone. So my possibly obvious, but not yet made above, is not the use of smart phones per se, but the number of individuals who no longer use a desktop. I suspect that is growing, and I suspect there are numbers out there but I suggest that’s a relevant piece of information.--S Philbrick(Talk) 17:29, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Makes sense. I'm a speed reader, so reading on a smartphone is frustrating, I need a larger block of text. And I can type a lot faster on a keyboard than I can on a smartphone. I doubt I'll give up my desktop soon. But I can understand the trend. As for editing on a smartphone, I find references a lot easier to do when I can copy and paste from other screens. And searching for references on a smartphone? Reading a JSTOR pdf? Not easy at all, too time consuming. Doug Weller (talk) 17:37, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
Doug Weller, I routinely find references using various Google search tools and then read the material on my smart phone. If I decide to use the reference, I copy the URL and paste it into the article within ref tags, and save it. Then, I copy and paste an appropriate citation template. Then I click back and forth from the reference content to the Wikipedia article, copying and pasting author, title, publisher, date and ISBN numbers. I read newspapers, magazines and books on my smart phone on and off all day long. I download PDFs frequently and have no trouble at all reading them. I cleared dozens of old PDFs out of my phone's memory just a few days ago. I have written and expanded roughly 100 articles this way. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 00:36, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
Cullen328 Oh I'm sure it's possible. To be clear, I speed-read and that works better with larger blocks of text. I have no "trouble" reading pdfs, etc, it's just quite a bit slower. And I hav a tool which saves everything I clip which also speeds things up for me. Horses for courses. Thanks for the detailed explanation Doug Weller (talk) 09:58, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

A few points from the article I think are worth highlighting:

  • The need to make contributing to Wikipedia less technical to improve editor diversity and recruitment
  • The resistance to change that makes it difficult for Wikipedia to evolve + other excessive in-fighting
  • The need for better mobile editing features for the young generation (not our generation), who prefer it.

I like Guy Macon's attitude, because so many people come to Jimbo's Talk page to complain, without any productive suggestions. How do we fix it/ make it better? CorporateM (Talk) 17:59, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

  • There remains a crying need for databasing and polling of core Wikipedia volunteers. Proposals for fixing problems need to first identify the problem. Who are the core 15,000 or 20,000 volunteers? How old are they? Are they urban or rural? Do they have kids at home or no kids? What makes them tick? Why are they here? — And who are the people that have left, exactly? The size of the editorial and quality control and site administrative corps can't be "fixed" until it is understood what the factors are that cause people to stay. We lament the obvious gender gap without even understanding its magnitude. We don't even talk about an even more dramatic ethnic gap at English WP. Nor do we have the slightest understanding of the nature of the 2/3 or so of core Wikipedians who do their thing outside of English WP. Unfortunately, WMF hasn't even taken baby steps towards filling in this picture.
If Corporate M wants a positive solution, here it is: a simple easy thing WMF could do is to produce a ranked list of the top 10,000 editors at En-WP every single month, including IP addresses of IP editors, akin to Wikipedia:List_of_Wikipedians_by_number_of_edits. A new page with 10,000 names every month. That's simple data to generate and community-generated interpretation would follow. Carrite (talk) 14:47, 22 June 2015 (UTC) Last edit: Carrite (talk) 03:03, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
Databasing core volunteers? - and what of not wanting to be databased - the Foundation as Big Brother? Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:43, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
Either you want to know who your core contributors are, their genders, ages, general geographic locations, what makes them tick, what they like about WP, what they want to fix about WP, so that you can create conditions that make more core contributors possible — or else you want to run around in circles in ignorance, whimpering and whining about speculative propositions backed by no evidence, spending millions upon millions of donor dollars trying to fix phantom problems that you assume are right but don't know are right because you've never taken the first step of analysis. It's as simple as that. Anonymity is such an overrated thing... — Tim Davenport, 5010 NW Shasta Ave., Corvallis, OR 97330 /// 541-745-7862 /// ShoeHutch@gmail.com /// Carrite (talk) 02:52, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
Of course, the website owners collect all kinds of information, but they did so under Wikipedia:Privacy policy. You want them to publish it? Are you really such a anti-privacy policy advocate? Alanscottwalker (talk) 11:09, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
We're supposed to be building a trusted information source and we're still formally adhering to the goofy belief that "anyone can edit" means "no registration required." It's a free information movement, maaaaan!!!' Uh, no. Let's get serious about this serious project. Carrite (talk) 00:18, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
Oh, man! At any rate, your lingo aside, I am pointing out the agreement the Foundation made with its users on privacy. So, whatever happens, it would be wrong to breach that after-the-fact, even to create your desired Citizendium. You are free to advocate on a 'no privacy policy' platform for some point in the future but the website would still have to keep the past private. Alanscottwalker (talk) 00:30, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
Databasing sounds scary but a survey of say top 15K wikieditors (with email feature switched on) and,especially those who has left (e.g. dropped their editing rate from >5K edits per year to <500 edits per year) might be of some limited utility . It could help to determine whether e.g. relaxing or tightening the civility policy would help to retain the editors, or whether it is better to spend the money on improving the visual editor or on throwing regional wikimanias, etc. Alex Bakharev (talk) 03:50, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
  • I thought that Lih's column was offbase to the extent that it suggests that mobile phone use is the reason for the editing decline. I suspect that it's simply that the novelty has worn off and that there are fewer obvious subjects of new articles. So the project has become more and more dominated by special interest groups: hobbyists and paid editors. The latter take advantage of the permissive attitude toward COI and the paucity of articles on obscure and uninteresting companies and people. There are also, of course, children playing with computers at school, so the vandalism situation remains with us and will be with us forever. Coretheapple (talk) 16:10, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

My three points about the demise of Wikipedia:

  • Why this head-scratching about new editors not coming, do we recruit? I can't see any serious effort on "my native Wikipedia-version" (Norwegian Bokmål/Riksmål) and neither here. I did manage (after much pressure) to have a campaign using the frontpage (reverted after a few hours) + banner, that seemed to attract some newcomers. But it should be done at least once a year.
  • When I started to contribute in 2004 it took me some time to understand how to sign discussions (silly me tried to copy others by writing out username & time). That is over ten years since, but while WMF have used resources on the media viewer which I never use, the discussion system and signing is still the same... It's a small obstacle, but what about giving us the tools we really need as volunteers, like the most useful possibility to send a thanks to other contributors?
  • The project difference. How come that the huge differences between contribution across various languages are not more studied, to try to use the successful ones to lift the others? There must be lessons to learn here. There are some extremely interesting data, but no-one seems into doing anything useful with them.

I don't think Wikipedia will die, as there are too many that have found out how fun contributing is! And besides the fun, you have the knowledge that you can help distribute facts in your local language and about topics that you find worthy, like Kai Holst. But I think that with a mix of openness to experiments (which runs contrary to how the mood seems today) + pushing recruitment AND improving the tools the contributors use every day, if not every minute, would be a good start. Ulflarsen (talk) 17:37, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

I agree that the headline "Will Wikipedia Survive?" is ludicrous. Obviously it will survive, if only as a medium for fancruft and paid editors, with the "legacy" articles forming a kind of backdrop that gives such crap credibility. A change resistant volunteer base puts the project into a kind of suspended animation organizationally, and the Foundation is timid. That's a formula for stasis, not demise. The important thing, as for any nonprofit, is that its fundraising is healthy and the parent company is flush with cash. Coretheapple (talk) 18:20, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
I'm rather wary off all those "change resistant volunteer base" claims. Or to put this way they seem to smell and just masquerade a "they don't want to do it my way"-complaint, so rhetoric labeling of sorts. Take for instance the visual editor, hardly anybody of the volunteer base has any objections against a better editor, if it is actually better. But the roll-out of rather buggy version with plenty of issues, was actually worse to work with for many editors. Similarly are other presumably "innovative" features, which the community has little interest in, while other features it request seem to be somewhere low in the development pipe or not pursued at at all. At least that's what I'm hearing when talking to member of the "change resistant community base". Change just for change's sake make little sense to me, we need changes that actually do improve things for the volunteer base, then they will be adopted quickly. I can understand that an unruly community is often cumbersome to deal with. But with all those innovative folks at the WMF, shouldn't they able to figure something out that gets the community involved properly. Just really listening and taking community requests seriously might be start. Or maybe something shockingly innovative: work for the community rather than expecting the community to work you. And if this is all too much to ask for, could it be that we have a change resistant WMF in the end? Just my 2 cents.--Kmhkmh (talk) 18:57, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
The WMF is not responsible to the volunteers, but has a responsibility to carry out its tax-exempt mission, however clumsily or timidly. Hence caving in to the arthritic change-resistance of volunteers, who basically tie up even modest change in red tape, is inadvisable. Coretheapple (talk) 20:37, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
Assuming this was not a tongue in cheek comment, it is perfect example of what's wrong with WMF approach. With such an attitude the WMF will get nowhere and worse it seems on verge of not understanding the mechanics of its project anymore.--Kmhkmh (talk) 21:13, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Here is a prime example of a change resistant WMF: In the process of making a proposal ( See [ meta:Community Tech project ideas#Start a project -- a real project with measurable goals and a schedule -- to reduce page weight ] and [ User talk:Jimbo Wales/Archive 189#Page Weight Matters ] ), I made a simple suggestion: I am going to talk about optimizing the talk page you are reading [the one on Meta}. I am doing this because every time I bring this up someone inevitably says that Wikipedia is already doing pretty much all that it can to reduce page weight. Even simple text-based pages such as this talk page can be optimized.

Consider the following snippet from the thread above:

[...] Maybe it needs to be reevaluated.
-- Menner (talk) 16:14, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
@Guy Macon:: some of the subtlest and most crucial performance engineering is already being done [...]

That's 180 displayed characters, plus whatever it takes to make the links, bold, etc. work.

The wikimarkup for the above is really quite compact:

[...]Maybe it needs to be reevaluated.
: -- [[User:Menner|Menner]] ([[User talk:Menner|talk]]) 16:14, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
:{{Ping|Guy Macon}}: some of the subtlest and most crucial performance engineering is already being done[...]

That's 225 characters, and you get the the links, bold, etc.

Now let's look at the HTML sent to the browser:

[...] Maybe it needs to be reevaluated.</dd>
</dl>
<dl>
<dd>-- <a href="/wiki/User:Menner" title="User:Menner">Menner</a> (<a href="/wiki/User_talk:Menner" title="User talk:Menner">talk</a>) 16:14, 30 May 2015 (UTC)</dd>
</dl>
<dl>
<dd>@<a href="/wiki/User:Guy_Macon" title="User:Guy Macon">Guy Macon</a>:: some of the subtlest and most crucial performance engineering is already being done [...]

Now we are at 406 bytes sent to the browser (ignoring compression for the sake of argument, because I would have to post what looks like random garbage above. When we do the measuring, compression should be taken into account).

So, can we reduce that page weight?

First. every line sent to the browser has a DOS-style carriage return and line feed (OD OA) as a line ending. If we used a Unix-style line feed (0A) that would save one byte on every single line of HTML on Wikipedia.

Actually HTML works just fine with both the carriage return and the line feed removed, but it isn't as readable for geeks like me who look at the raw HTML output. This is easily addressed by making the HTML line ending configurable in the preferences.

OK, how about that "title=" in the link? Can we get rid of that?

So right there we have a bunch of useless bytes sent to the browser for every signature. They have zero benefit to anyone. All they do is increase the page weight.

I could go on and on with other obvious ways to optimize this page without changing what the user sees...

Let's look at one small part of the above suggestion:

Every line sent to the browser has a DOS-style carriage return and line feed (OD OA) as a line ending. If we used a Unix-style line feed (0A) that would save one byte on every single line of HTML on Wikipedia.

I would have been happy with any of the following responses from the WMF:

  • Great idea! We are testing it on a limited number of pages now and will do it everywhere if there are no unexpected problems.
  • We have evaluated your suggestion and are rejecting it because of reason X.
  • Your suggestion is in the queue for evaluation,There are X suggestions in line ahead of you.
  • Go away. "Suggestions" from wikipedia editors are not welcome here.

Instead I have been stonewalled, with zero response from anyone a the WMF with any technical knowledge about reducing page weight. Why is it so hard for me to get any sort of an answer? --Guy Macon (talk) 22:01, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

That goes to my earlier point. The community is stodgy and uninterested in change. An editor comes along with a good idea and gets shot down. Happens all the time. I'm not suggesting the WMF is a font of great ideas. On the contrary, it needs to take the lead and it doesn't. I'm not acquainted with your proposal, but I do know that the plague of paid editing was stonewalled by the so-called community, and then the WMF came up with a half-baked, really pretty lame change in the TOU. And boy did people howl here! Coretheapple (talk) 22:19, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
The key here is that the problem isn't just controversial proposals that get ignored. Mine was a simple technical change that would take less than a day to accomplish and would have zero effect on anyone other than making Wikipedia a bit faster. And it got stonewalled. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:27, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
That makes the entire situation even more FUBAR. Coretheapple (talk) 17:05, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
As is our custom, this will soon be archived with zero response from anyone involved in any aspect of the WMF, and as is my custom, I once again invite anyone who has any suggestions as to where I could post a proposal without the WMF stonewalling me to drop me a line on my talk page. --Guy Macon (talk) 03:40, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

The mobile view makes me furious primarily because there is no opt-out in the preferences for registered users. Everytime I request that option the WMF staff simply asks me to give feedback to the mobile site. I think that is an insult to my wisdom. I simply want desktop view on my mobile phone because the layout is still superior than mobile site. The mobile site also has strange design choice on table cell which ruins the border-less charts like WP:Route diagram template. To add insult to injury, there's no way for common editors to override the default mobile styles. I agree that the mobile site is essential but it faults for interfering the desktop site which feels like a middle finger to established editors. I tried the Wikipedia Mobile app for few minutes. It allows editing in source mode but I can't find any apparent access to talk page which makes this app feels like half-baked. Maybe we should invest an editor app with all the visualeditor concepts put into it. After all, editing WP using mobile devices' virtual keyboard is still very uninviting. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.) 05:25, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

The Guardian piece

The Guardian have now published a comment piece based on the New York Times piece. The piece gives the impression that nobody in the world uses a computer any more and that everybody who uses the internet can't look at the same thing for more than two seconds, including people who are, say, writing an article or adding references. The quote '$60m in the bank' suggests that Wikipedia having money, for example to buy the equipment necessary to run it, is intrinsically evil. In that case the Guardian would be evil if it was actually making a profit. 'The editing interface for mobile Wikipedia is just about impossible to use'-That's a ridiculous statement. 'Oh well, I could always ask Google, that well-known friend of freedom.' -No, I really have no idea what that means. Rubbish computer 22:41, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

That article is derivative and stupid. I wonder if the WMF people, who don't appear to be the most original thinkers on this planet, are going to waste their time chasing after the themes in this article and in the Times piece. To be fair, he does make a valid criticism of Atex (software).Coretheapple (talk) 19:29, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Policy concern

Hello Jimbo Wales, I have a question concerning WP:GRAPEVINE & WP:3RRNO exemption #7. Both policies do not clarify on how to handle edit warring/disputes during a BLP notice bored discussion. My question is…Can involved editors in the dispute still revert each other continually during a BLP discussion via violate WP:3RR and get away WP:3RRNO exemption #7 until the BLP discussion is over? — JudeccaXIII (talk) 22:58, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

WP:INVOLVED violation?

clearly there's little support for this particular separation of powers --Elvey(t•c) 16:59, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Is it a violation of WP:INVOLVED for an administrator to revdel content off their own talk page (or should it be)? I think so. I just stumbled upon a deletion log that showed an editor has been doing that. A reason given recently was "RD2: Grossly insulting, degrading, or offensive material". (This is NOT related; it's coincidental that both are about possible WP:INVOLVED violations.)--Elvey(t•c) 07:18, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

If you don't give me a link to the actual thing you are talking about, how am I to evaluate it? It is not automatically a violation, depending on what it is that's being revision deleted. Certainly I would like anyone under any circumstances to get rid of "Grossly insulting, degrading, or offensive material" as quickly as possible. If the material is somehow borderline for that designation, then it would likely be prudent for an admin to get someone else to take action. But even in that case, if it's just annoying material, then I don't see what the problem is. We are not a wide open free speech platform, and aggressive behavior of all kinds should be cleaned up quickly.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 08:52, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
In general, admin tools can be used on pages where one is involved if they're not involved in the specific question and the correct answer is blindingly obvious. So, (as Jimbo notes), it's hard to know without the specific case, but if IPs were replacing my userpage with

WilyD is the king of the dickbutts

for example, it'd be fine for me to protect my userpage, or whatnot, because it's just vandalism, and not an issue which requires judgement in which I'm involved. No conflict, no question of whether my "involvedness" is influencing the outcome. WilyD 09:30, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
If you ran into that same bit of vandalism targeted at me on my userpage, you would of course revert (anyone would) and possibly block the user or even protect the page, depending on what else is going on, but would you revdel the vandalism? I think not. On the other hand, if the vandalism included my social security or credit card number, I would expect it to be revdeled on sight by the first admin who notices it.
Could we have a vague description of the general sort of thing that was revdeled in this case? No details, just something like "personal information" or "unfounded accusation" or "cursing/insulting". --Guy Macon (talk) 17:51, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
It seems to me that on principle, to facilitate checks and balances / avoid the appearance of excessive concentration of power, that an admin shall not revdel content off their own talk page, but rather, should rely on other admins to do so - making a request the way normal users request revdel. What I'm asking for is whether you agree or disagree with that principle. That's the actual thing I'm talking about and hope you and talk page stalkers evaluate. Make sense? That's why I didn't link to the deletion history that shows the revdel occurred. The material that was revdel'd isn't what I'm asking about. (For the purposes of this question, let's AGF and assume that the reason given, "Wikipedia:Revision_deletion#2 RD2: Grossly insulting, degrading, or offensive material" would probably be seen as a valid reason, but we don't know). As I said, I just stumbled upon a deletion log; how would I know what material had been revdel'd? That's why I am seeking an answer to the question I asked, which, it bears repeating/refining is: Is it (generally speaking) a violation of WP:INVOLVED for an administrator to revdel content off their own talk page or should it be? Clear now? IOW, I think it's reasonable to require a separation of powers exist such that users who can revdel must make a request (the same way normal users request revdel) when revdel is needed on their own talk pages.--Elvey(t•c) 02:13, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
Read WP:INVOLVED: "In straightforward cases (e.g., blatant vandalism), the community has historically endorsed the obvious action of any administrator – even if involved – on the basis that any reasonable administrator would have probably come to the same conclusion." Obvious revdels are no different from an admin semi-protecting their user pages. No need to waste another admin's time. --NeilN talk to me 02:17, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
(e/c) It seems obvious to me that that bit of WP:INVOLVED doesn't answer my question. No different? You're wrong there. The checks and balances are different. A normal user can't tell whether the action of the administrator was appropriate. --Elvey(t•c) 02:34, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
Admins also revdel edits no one specifically asked them to revdel. Everything is logged so any non-kosher activity can be looked into by asking another admin. --NeilN talk to me 02:48, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
(e/c) Wikipedia is not a democracy nor a bureaucracy nor a judicial or quasi judicial body:"separation of powers" / "checks and balances" for the sake of "checks and balances" don't really apply. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 02:21, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
So I take it your answers to my questions are No and No, RPoD. I'm quite interested to hear from Jimbo whether he sees "separation of powers" and "checks and balances" as quite so useless and inapplicable 'round here as you seem to. I doubt he does. --Elvey(t•c) 02:44, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
Correct. Admins get the mop because they have established a great level of trust by the community. There would be nothing to be gained by inappropriate use of the mop on their user page. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 03:28, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
Thanks. No point commenting further below.--Elvey(t•c) 04:05, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
avoid the appearance of excessive concentration of power, well, as I see it, admin responsibilities are well-defined and I don't think revdeling an offensive remark on ones user page is an abuse of power. If I was an admin, I'd revert it and let it exist in the edit history but then, I don't know how offensive it was. I think on a scale of 1 (low) to 10 (high) on the exercise of admin mops, this ranks as a 1 as it really affects no other editor than one whose offensive remark was deleted and I do not think this counts as injury to them. Liz Read! Talk! 02:35, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
But we don't know whether it was an offensive remark or (say) a valid policy violation notice/complaint that others should be aware of.--Elvey(t•c) 02:44, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
Do you really think an editor whose edit had been wrongly revdelled would keep quiet about it? --NeilN talk to me 02:51, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
I understand why Elvey wants to make this a hard-and-fast rule independent of content, but the two cannot be disentangled like that. If Admin X revdels "Admin X is a poopyhead", that is a (minor) WP:INVOLVED violation. Nobody gave admins the special privilege of having insults aimed at them revdeled when the rest of us only get them deleted. On the other hand, if Admin X revdels "Admin X's social security number is 555-55-5555", that's fine. Admin X (or any other admin) would have instantly deleted "Guy Macon's social security number is 555-55-5555" the moment he or she became aware of it, and WP:BLP trumps WP:INVOLVED. --Guy Macon (talk) 02:53, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
I'm thinking of a long term abuser who delights in leaving edits and edit summaries stating X is a racist killer or a child molester. I'm revdelling that, no matter who X is. --NeilN talk to me 02:58, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
And that's perfectly OK as well. You wouldn't be giving yourself the special privilege of not being called those things if you deleted them when they were aimed at me or anyone else. Some folks like everything to be defined, but context and intent matter. "I'm revdelling that, no matter who X is" is the exact opposite of using revdel to give yourself a special privilege, so it clearly does not violate WP:INVOLVED even if X happens to be you this time. --Guy Macon (talk) 03:20, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
It's bad for the project to have Grossly insulting, degrading, or offensive material hanging around any longer than necessary. There's a reason why the admin toolset is sometimes referred to as "the mop"—when someone vomits on Wikipedia's floor (whether in the hall, the common areas, or in a particular user's room) we expect the mop-wielders to efficiently clean up the mess rather than dithering over paperwork for every straightforward task.
Revision deletion on a user page has no more (and no fewer) 'checks and balances' than any other deletion action (by revision or whole page); only admins can review any deleted content. If you have concerns about a particular revision deletion – or any deletion action – try asking the admin politely for more information. If you are unsatisified by the response or you have a legitimate, evidence-based reason to be concerned about the admin's use of deletion tools, then escalate the issue appropriately.
Otherwise, stop shopping for reasons to be indignant, and do something constructive with your time. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 03:05, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Obviously, there's consensus that separation of powers is a good idea, because we have lots of different access bits that are turned on for different users. I don't need Jimbo to confirm that. But clearly there's little support for this particular separation of powers. --Elvey(t•c) 16:59, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


Interlinking between Wikipedia, WikiCommons and Wikisource

Is the interlinking between Wikipedia, WikiCommons and Wikisource a core goal? The current trend at Wikisource is to remove all links to Wikipedia to give a distraction free experience for the reader. It seems like it is removing one of the most valuable aspects of having the three projects on a common platform. Should a text naming General Foo of Fooville be linked to the person and the location in Wikipedia? How can we balance the reader who desires a "clean experience" versus the reader who wants to be informed? There are so few editors at Wikisource that a single person can determine policy. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 16:10, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

When I visit Wikisource, I very much appreciate links to Wikipedia, and I did not know of a trend to remove such links. When I visit a physical library, I do not consider one section to be a distraction from another section. If I have a business on Main Street, I do not consider another business next door on Main Street to be a distraction from my business—in fact, there can even be a synergistic relationship between them.
—Wavelength (talk) 17:20, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
I found a current discussion at https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Wikisource:Scriptorium#Linking_to_Wikipedia, that is, s:Wikisource:Scriptorium#Linking to Wikipedia (version of 07:35, 30 June 2015).
—Wavelength (talk) 18:15, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Do we want to promote inter-connectivity between projects, or are we going to allow each project to become a walled garden with only internal links? Imagine if Wikipedia severed all connections to Wikicommons images or Wikisource texts, what would the utility of that be? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 18:56, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
FYI, I see that I accidentally removed RAN's prior post. I did not even realize I had done so until he noted it on his talk page. This was, again, an accident on my part that I didn't even notice and did not intend. I must have mis-clicked while reading. My apologies to all, especially RAN. JoeSperrazza (talk) 20:09, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
At https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Wikisource:Scriptorium#Why_do_we_delete_links_to_Wikipedia_in_our_hosted_texts.3F, that is, s:Wikisource:Scriptorium#Why do we delete links to Wikipedia in our hosted texts? (version of 23:40, 30 June 2015), there is a link to https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Wikisource:Wikilinks, that is, s:Wikisource:Wikilinks. (You might wish to add Template:User Wikisource and Category:Wikipedians who contribute to the English Wikisource to your user page.)
—Wavelength (talk) 00:16, 1 July 2015 (UTC) and 00:27, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

There seems to be a lot of just plain sabotage at Wikisource. For example, they have another section about deleting works because an ellipsis is used because part of the wource document was illegible - there's no collaboration allowed to get a full copy, apparently. I went to use my own heavily Wikilinked copy of Charter 08 as an example, but somebody deleted it because it was GFDL. (My recollection is that the deletions all started with a single case where an admin was making up bogus OR arguments about the contents of Ted Kaczinski's shack being auctioned off as an excuse to say the guy's manifesto was retroactively taken out of the public domain, because he didn't like it, but by now I don't think of Wikisource as a very productive way to try to distribute information) Wnt (talk) 15:36, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

There are just too few editors, so one person with deletion rights and blocking rights can have unchecked influence. The same person that blocked me, and deleted all Wikipedia links in my transcription, deleted three public domain documents I was carefully transcribing, because they were incomplete. They could have added the standard "incomplete" tag or migrated them to my user page while the transcription was ongoing. Is the interlinking between Wikipedia, WikiCommons and Wikisource a core goal? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 19:07, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Wikimedia sister projects and Help:Interwikimedia links have related information.
—Wavelength (talk) 20:47, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Another Qatar connection

Qatar Foundation is one of the top 13 donors to the Wikimedia Foundation. Qatar Foundation has been authored by Bell Pottinger and Grayling public relations firms. Cherie Blair cut the 10th anniversary Wikipedia cake with you, Jimbo. And now this -- Cherie Blair trying to win the Clintons' favor on behalf of Qatar's royal family? I hope that this is on the Jimmy Wales Foundation's radar! - 23.24.31.5 (talk) 19:31, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

SOPA-like issue (Freedom of Panorama issue at EU parliament)

The London Eye, blacked out to show the effect of removing section 62 of the Copyright Designs and Patents Act 1988, which allows the photography of buildings in the UK

Since you were instrumental in making the community aware of the Wikipedia:SOPA, I wonder if you aware of - and what is your take on - the commons:Commons:Freedom_of_Panorama_2015 and Wikipedia:Freedom of Panorama 2015 issues? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 01:59, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

This doesn't look like as potentially severe an issue as SOPA even though it is still significant. Dustin (talk) 02:04, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
Britain has got it right and does not impose the sort of restrictions that some continental countries have in this area. Although the European Parliament is largely a talking shop, it is worrying that Britain could be dragged down the same road as the continental countries if this proposal became law across Europe.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 07:45, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
I took the liberty of fixing your first link above. This is indeed an important cause, both as an opportunity to save the freedom to take photos in public places in Britain and to make it an issue in countries that need to create such a right. Wnt (talk) 15:15, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Limiting the monopoly of Wikimedia

So it appears that Wikimedia, the American monopoly, was one of the reasons behind Jean-Marie Cavada's amendment to limit freedom of panorama across the European Union (mentioned by @Piotrus above). Certainly he devoted quite a long part of his official position on the matter to criticize Wikimedia's—and, it appears, Creative Commons's—requirements that works be editable and usable for commercial purposes.

I can't read any French, and it seems that his message gets lost during automated translation, but certainly being named as a reason for this amendment is quite interesting. That said, I think it would be useful if we were provided with an English translation of this statement so as to allow a productive discussion if anyone wishes to have one. odder (talk) 18:05, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Both Wikipedia & Wikimedia Commons don't hesitate to remove content that volatiles a particular countries freedom of panorama copyright laws. So jean-marie cavadacase is moot. So why discuss a journalists confused interpretations of WP?--Aspro (talk) 21:04, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
@Aspro: Cavada is not a journalist: he is an MEP who has tabled an amendment which would remove Freedom of Panorama from those countries in the EU which have it - most of them, including the UK. JohnCD (talk) 21:32, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for pointing that out. He should do his homework then and not let lobbyists do his thinking for him so that he ends up sounding like a parrot.--Aspro (talk) 21:43, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
Don't try to pin any requirements on Creative Commons. They offer a variety of licenses you can choose from:
  • CC Zero (CC0): The author or licensor waives as many rights as legally possible, worldwide.
  • Attribution (BY): Licensees may copy, distribute, display and perform the work and make derivative works based on it only if they give the author or licensor credit.
  • Share-alike (SA): Licensees may distribute derivative works only under a license identical to the license that governs the original work.
  • Non-commercial (NC):Licensees may copy, distribute, display, and perform the work and make derivative works based on it only for noncommercial purposes.
  • No Derivative Works (ND): Licensees may copy, distribute, display and perform only verbatim copies of the work, not derivative works based on it.
Its your choice which to use. but CC0 and CC BY-SA are the best choices if you want your work to be used on Wikipedia. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:25, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for this valuable lesson in Creative Commons licencing, @Guy Macon, but let me suggest that you might have chosen the wrong audience for your lecture. To bring this discussion back on topic, however, let me clarify that I think Cavada represents a group opposed to the idea of allowing commercial reuse of works visible in all CC licences without the -NC clause.
I do believe that I have chosen the right audience -- the person who wrote the words "Creative Commons's requirements that works be editable and usable for commercial purposes". That's clearly wrong as the existence of CC NC and CC ND proves. It is your choice which CC license to apply to your works. CC has no requirement that a work be editable or usable for commercial purposes -- but Wikipedia does. --Guy Macon (talk) 04:59, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
I think it would be interesting to get a better understanding of this position and the reasons behind his taking it. (Is it just to protect the interest of architects? Is it an example of anti-Americanism? Opposition to multi-billion corporations (which, incidentally, the Wikimedia Foundation, and certainly not the Wikimedia movement, are not)? odder (talk) 22:14, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
That's a confusing post - Attribution is required for all Creative Commons licences (i.e there's no CC-SA licence as your post accidentally implies) with the exception of their No Rights Reserved/Public Domain dedication/declaration (aka the CC0 licence). There are also a number of scenarios where a Creative Commons licence cannot be used, such as screenshots of open source software, and there's a wide range of non Creative Commons licences that we welcome with equally open arms (but maybe a bit of a groan) like the old GFDL licence. Hell, there's even the Do What the Fuck You Want to Public License. The choice of licence will not affect the use of your work on Wikipedia either, and to suggest otherwise is also wrong. The best image to illustrate an article should (and almost always will) be chosen regardless of licence. Users must be comfortable releasing their work under the licence they're most comfortable with, and if they prefer a licence other than the Creative Commons licence, they'll be in no way disadvantaged for doing so.
The best licence from our point of view (as free and open source people) is one which requires attribution and forces derivative works to be released under an equally open licence, so we can make use of those derivative works - i.e the CC BY-SA licence OR something like the GFDL licence. The CC BY-SA licence is normally the easier to use, but there's no best choices if you want your work to be used on Wikipedia. Nick (talk) 22:19, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
There certainly is a CC-SA license. It is at [ http://creativecommons.org/licenses/sa/1.0/ ]. It is what CC calls "retired" (and pretty much everyone else calls "deprecated") but works exist that are licensed under CC-SA, and in the case of the licenses that were only retired because of inadequate demand. you can still choose them if that's what you really want to do.
Your claim that "The choice of licence will not affect the use of your work on Wikipedia" is also incorrect.
License Compatibility with Wikipedia (For text only; Please see Wikipedia:File copyright_tags for licenses allowed with files)
Licenses compatible with Wikipedia Licenses not compatible with Wikipedia
Creative Commons Licenses
CC BY (all versions and ports) CC BY-SA 4.0 NOTE:
CC BY-SA 1.0, 2.0, 2.5, 3.0 CC BY-NC
CC BY-NC-ND
CC BY-ND
CC BY-NC-SA
Other Licenses
GFDL and CC BY or CC BY-SA Any GNU-only license
NOTE: According to the WMF legal team, CC BY-SA 4.0 is not backwards compatible with CC BY-SA 3.0. Therefore, mixing text licenses under 3.0 and 4.0 would be problematic, however files uploaded under this license are fine.
BTW, if anyone is confused by the two different spellings of license/licence used on this page, "In British English, Canadian English, Australian English, Irish English, and New Zealand English the noun is spelt licence and the verb is license. The spelling licence is not used for either part of speech in the United States."[4] --Guy Macon (talk) 04:59, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
That's as unclear as your previous post - can you please just stop with the dubious licence advice which is confusing and unhelpful.
That the choice of licence will not affect the use of your work on Wikipedia is absolutely correct (in this case I made a distinction between an image being uploaded and an image being used to illustrate an article) you made it appear that if images were uploaded with a licence other than CC0 or CC BY-SA, so the GFDL licence, CC BY, FAL etc you wouldn't see your work being used. That's not the case, as I made clear, there's a number of other equally free licences which are acceptable, and media files used to illustrate an article will not be chosen based on the licence. I did think it was clear than Non Commercial and/or Non Derivative licences can't normally be uploaded (as the File Uploader won't normally allow such work to be uploaded) but there are circumstances in which they can also be used.
We accept, for example, dual licensed images and there are a number of images which have a GFDL licence and a Non Commercial and/or Non Derivative Creative Commons licence (see File:US-power-strip-rotated.jpg for an example). It's also quite common to allow re-users to choose either CC BY-SA and CC BY-NC licences, so anybody wanting to use an image for commercial purposes if forced to release a derivative work under a free licence, but a private user isn't, they only need to Attribute the original author.
We also accept images licensed under a Non Commercial and/or Non Derivative licence under a claim of Fair Use, where necessary, but that's exceedingly rare.
It's perhaps worth mentioning that the deprecated CC-SA licence is absolutely fine for Wikipedia as it does not limit commercial use and prevent derivative works, but it's absent from your table. GFDL and CC BY or CC BY-SA isn't a licence, it's two licences together, what is known as dual licensing (I licence all my images this way) and end re-users of work can choose which licence they're going to follow. They don't need to use both licences if they don't want to do so.
Finally, it's worth mentioning the existence of other licences not mentioned anywhere in this discussion, such as the UK Open Government Licence, which allows both text and images to be used on Wikipedia, as it's compatible with the CC BY-SA licences. There's a decent guide on Commons - see our licence guide. Nick (talk) 10:26, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
To create a better perspective: Wikipedia is intended to be a free encyclopedia. Free according the Definition of Free Cultural Works. Romaine (talk) 12:58, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
.................Americans also don't spell spelled as "spelt." Carrite (talk) 15:41, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
update: Le Figaro says that (fr) Mr. Cavada just left his party (Nous Citoyens - 13.800 militants) to create some new political entity. --g (talk) 23:13, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Example

Let's see if I got this right (illustrating with example):

High resolution photograph of building in country without Freedom of Panorama Current situation: Publication of photograph in US without prior consent of the building's architect? Current situation: Publication of photograph in the country where the building is situated? When the original Reda proposal gets accepted by the EU When Cavada's amendement proposal gets accepted by the EU
Example image (building situated in Belgium) Allowed (when ignoring legislation in Belgium, a country without Freedom of Panorama) Not allowed without prior consent by the architect of the building Belgium (within an indeterminate timespan) obliged to update its legislation with Freedom of Panorama, removing red tape to (re)publish the image everywhere Status quo, no obligation for Belgium to extend its laws with Freedom of Panorama

(I didn't choose the example image randomly: it is the EU building in Brussels: when the EU wanted to make a letterhead with a logo based on the form of that building, the architect refused, which he could according to the copyright provisions in Belgium) --Francis Schonken (talk) 07:27, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Note that the bluelink in the lower left corner of the table would become a redlink soon when Aspro's "Both Wikipedia & Wikimedia Commons don't hesitate to remove content that volatiles [violates?] a particular countries freedom of panorama copyright laws." is correct. --Francis Schonken (talk) 07:47, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
Whoops. Over reliance on my spelling chequer --Aspro (talk) 13:52, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
Aspro is not the only one to use some variant of "violates FOP" - it occurs too often at Commons. We need to come up with some phrase like "Unfreedom of Panorama" or "Public Place Copyright" to describe the situation in a way that can be used with 'violate'. The conversion of FOP into a bugaboo, an excuse for deleting endless reams of photos (most of which could be posted anywhere else) is politically confusing to those we would like to have look at the issue. Wnt (talk) 15:22, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
The Register has moaned about this debate.[5] It should be stressed that no restriction on freedom of panorama is likely to become law in the immediate future. However, it is worrying that the European Commission might try to create a single harmonized version of European copyright law at some point in the future. It is ironic that the EU is based largely in Belgium, and it is not possible to upload images of buildings such as the European Parliament to Commons without them being nominated for deletion.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 19:57, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
That "Register" article is very poor journalism. If you look at European Union legislative procedure. It states "the Commission frequently introduces legislation at the behest of the Council or upon the suggestion of Parliament..." so the Parliament could lobby the Comission to introduce leglislation that could then be passed into EU law. And there is a real risk of that happening. --Jules (Mrjulesd) 22:53, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Concerning Article About Wikipedia

Since part of this was directly addressed to you, just wanted to make sure you saw it. http://matthewhopkinsnews.com/?p=1700 Reventtalk 14:43, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Changed the title to make clearer but thanks to Revent for posting. The article really concerns me. It is worrying that there are a number of problems here that Wikipedia does not seem to have got a grip on. I myself feel intimidated to the extent I am using an IP not my main Wikipedia account.
I am especially troubled that this Auerbachkelly has not been given the help suggested by FreeRangeFrog.
The author of this article is obviously being given privileged information at a government level. Wikipedia cannot ignore these people. Jimbo_Wales needs to show some leadership and ensure that bloggers like Vordrak and journalists are made to feel welcome here.
Wikipedia has to stop ignoring these issues. The gamergate types like Rhoark, DHeyward and Masem have points to make, even if we don't agree with everything they say.
I thought Carrite put it best the other day. I wonder what KonveyorBelt thinks? 107.167.91.118 (talk) 17:53, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
sozzles! pingin! Auerbachkeller and Konveyor Belt props! 107.167.91.108 (talk) 18:18, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
I do not find Vordrak's contributions to be productive, and I would appreciate not being continually pinged into discussions about him when there is no basis for my involvement. Rhoark (talk) 18:37, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
Masem isn't a "Gamergate type," he's a Wikipedian. Dunno the others you mention to comment one way or the other. Carrite (talk) 20:33, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
Ditto. This partisan talk isn't helpful especially when attributing a label to a user that they wouldn't themselves use. Jgm74 (talk) 22:37, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
I, too, am only a wikipedian. I can't keep up with WP drama, let alone gamergate drama and am a bit old to care. I had to ask what AAA and E3 was and haven't played a real videogame in at least 15 years. There is definitely a lack of neutrality on certain topics and the hostility I have received (both on and off wiki regarding gamergate) is a testament to that. I have no horse in the race other than wikipedia. It has been quite discouraging. --DHeyward (talk) 23:25, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
My 2¢.
From time to time Wikipedia will be visited by journalists, celebrities and other people with influence over the wider community. It behooves us as scholars and Wikipedians to treat them in a professional and respectful way. We have let ourselves down. I went through the history for Auerbachkeller and he has not had any real resolution to the complaints he raised.
People on WP:BLPN acknowledged David Auerbach had suffered wrongful behavior but it was not in their silo so they did nothing. Auerbach may be many things but WP:FRINGE he is not.
Vordrak is blatantly in contact with a member of the British government since otherwise there is no way he could know about the letter to the UK chapter. Things said to him on Wikipedia will likely be seen by elected officials.
I went through the history for Vordrak This morning he had to raise a concern about a BLP violation although thankfully the user responsible Kookiethebird was summarily indeffed and even had his user page deleted by HJ Mitchell.
It also looks like some administrators have been very rude to Vordrak, which again is likely to be seen by public figures. Zad68 is currently the subject of a lengthy conversation on his talk page calling for his removal because he closed an AE and imposed a sanction on a user after 28 minutes. In between times, 'Zach' as he calls himself found time to complain Vordrak had sent him emails. Zach found the emails intimidatory but then also said, 'Vordrak you've sent me a number of emails, and to be honest, I haven't read most of them'. How can an administrator be intimidated by an email from a regular editor they had not read?
That looks like straightforward abuse of administrator powers to me.
I have decided to ping the arbitration committee. I would like them to engage with these visitors to our community and offer to help them with any concerns. Sorry, but AGK Courcelles DeltaQuad DGG Doug Weller Euryalus GorillaWarfare LFaraone NativeForeigner Roger Davies Salvio giuliano Seraphimblade Thryduulf Yunshui Guerillero.
Wikipedia is looking ridiculously unprofessional and we owe these newcomers an apology. 2001:41D0:1:C57F:0:0:0:1 (talk) 22:38, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
What can we, the Arbitraiton Committee, do? The BLP provisions seem to have worked as intended this morning and we are currently hearing a case about process issues at AE (please add your evidence there if you haven't already - reading this is the first thing I've done on Wikipedia in about 6 hours). Ultimately though (with very few exceptions) we cannot act unless the community has tried and failed to resolve a problem itself, failed to do so and then asked for our input. Even if we did have the remit to hunt out problems, and the authority to impose a fix on them, we just do not have the resources to do it. Arbitration is not a magic bullet, and even where we can act our jurisdiction is limited to the English Wikipedia - we cannot control what people write about Wikipedia or Wikipedians elsewhere. Thryduulf (talk) 23:15, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

So, anyone want to link the /r/KiA or 8chan thread that sent these people here? --108.38.204.15 (talk) 01:19, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

it's pretty easy to find. MarkBernstein (talk) 01:47, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Why am I being pinged here? (For the record I have no strong opinions either way on GG).KonveyorBelt 03:20, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

How many emails do you have to read to feel intimidated by the sender? IMHO one is enough, particularly if it says that the writer will speak to their MP if what we do doesn't satisfy him. Not a legal threat but still has a chilling effect. Some quotes from the Witchfinder General website: ""The Witchfinder General is written by Matthew Hopkins. We aim to expose corruption and terrorise the guilty without worrying too much about due process." that's from the About Page "This website collects IP addresses and other information (user agents, referring page) about users for the purposes of traffic analysis and security. This information is never disclosed except as required by law or for purposes connected with the running of the site (including journalism)." from the site's Privacy Policy. And "The Witchfinder exposes the way in which shoddy left-wing journalism has lent credibility to and empowered troublesome Wikipedia users such as Mark Bernstein, as well as a suggestion as to what ethics campaigners can do about it." Doug Weller (talk) 04:58, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
It's muckraking and nothing that anyone will ever take seriously. The problem is that we end up spending a great deal of time dealing with people who only want to deal with us in Bad Faith. Let's acknowledge the "journalism" and move on to something - anything - that actually has meaning.--Jorm (talk) 05:08, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
My favorite line in this screed is "Some articles on the encyclopaedia have been seized by an extreme left wing cabal of so-called ‘Social Justice Warriors’ (SJWs)." I am always interested in constructive criticism but I find this particular style of argumentation to be quite repellent. In case anyone wants to set up a picket line outside my home, I live at 3 Palestrina Ct., American Canyon, California, 94503. It is a big round court, with room for at least 100 demonstrators. Bring it on. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 05:09, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
We're practically neighbors 100 block of Waldo Ct, Sausalito. We should stage our own demonstration. --DHeyward (talk) 08:38, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
Hey, DHeyward, when I first came to California in 1972, I spent a few months living on a houseboat anchored at the Sausalito heliport. The stories I could tell! Cullen328 Let's discuss it 00:10, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

What a load of crap. Why are this page used to promote blogs such as this? - Cwobeel (talk) 00:14, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Question

Dear Jimbo. Hi. I have a question. In some Wikipedia admin elected by community consensus, but elected admin have a unethical statements, to that user who don't participate on this election. Now flag is given or not? --Vadgt (talk) 16:05, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Can you please try to be more specific? Cullen328 Let's discuss it 00:13, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
Someone elected admin, but he have unethical statements to that user who don't participate on this election. For example elected admin formerly have many accounts, but he admin elected. For more specific see this. Regards --Vadgt (talk) 10:54, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Zaid Hamid

Hi Jimbo. I was reading up on Raif Badawi, where there happens to be a recent video of you. I have an edmin eye on a rumoured[6] similar-ish article: Zaid Hamid. Also to other editors: I am not going to be around too much in the next few days - please watchlist it. -- zzuuzz (talk) 11:50, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 01 July 2015

Banned user notification

This user was banned by you some time ago, but does not currently have a {{banned}} template on her user page. The page history shows that this is due to this being the person's real name. I see no exemptions for real names in the banning policy. Is this appropriate procedure? – Robin Hood  (talk) 00:59, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

It certainly ought to be. Wikipedia tries to solicit ordinary people around the world to put in time and effort to expand the encyclopedia. They don't say that if you put some stuff on your user page they don't like that your name will come up with a big bold BANNED notice even 8 years after your last edit! If removing such notices for named individuals isn't policy, especially after a certain time has passed, then it should become so -- immediately. Wnt (talk) 01:10, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
My preference would be for admins to be much more proactive and to block editors who, after a warning, insist on splattering this user is banned!!! around. The case mentioned here involves an editor who was blocked eight years ago, and now an IP wants to help the encyclopedia by reigniting a finished event. This is probably part of the series of get-jimbo posts, so I recommend the removal of this section. Johnuniq (talk) 01:43, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
Sorry, that was me. I was using a proxy for other reasons at the time (which should probably be range-blocked, actually, like most of the other PIA proxies are) and failed to notice I wasn't logged in. This only came up as part of another discussion with someone about historical events, so I went to check out the page and noticed the oddity. I had thought that all banned users were supposed to have that notification on their page, so I asked about it. I'm less concerned about that specific user than about what the policy is (or should be) for cases where the user's name is their real name or their real name is announced on the page. – Robin Hood  (talk) 02:34, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
How would adding templates to the user page of an account that has not been active for eight years help the encyclopedia? Shaming editors is not the purpose of Wikipedia. Johnuniq (talk) 03:02, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
I never suggested adding the template, nor did I intend to imply it. It was just patently obvious when looking at the two editors involved in the linked discussion that one's user page was different than the other. When I understood what was happening, I checked the policy and found that it didn't mention anything about that situation at all. I only brought the issue to Jimbo's talk page because he was directly involved; had that not been the case, we'd be on the banning policy talk page right now rather than here. Changing policy is probably the better way to go here, I agree, and I'll be happy to bring that up on the policy talk page—without any specific names—if that's what people feel should be done. And in that case, an administrator is quite welcome to revision-delete this entire conversation and we can put this whole mess of a conversation behind us and try to pretend it never happened. This was never about Jimbo or about the specific user, it was supposed to be about policy. – Robin Hood  (talk) 03:37, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
Just for the record, I've now started that conversation here and requested that the range I accidentally edited from be blocked on AN. – Robin Hood  (talk) 04:00, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
The user is banned, but edited under her real name so there are all kinds of reasons for being conservative. There's no realistic prospect she'll pass unnoticed if she does return, and she is less problematic than some of her erstwhile friends, one of whom ended up under a restraining order. Let sleeping dogs lie. Guy (Help!) 13:34, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
This sort of thing shows why WP:IAR is one of our main rules. We should do the practical and kind and decent thing, even in cases where we somehow forgot about edge cases and interesting side possibilities when we wrote up a policy. I believe that [the section of the banning policy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Banning_policy#User_pages] which talks about this should be updated to include a note about the importance of letting people walk away with dignity.
There are two reasons to care about letting people walk away with dignity. First, it's just the nice and polite thing to do. Additionally, long experience shows that many longterm trolls started out as mere banned users and then became worse and worse because it caused them emotional pain to be listed on the site as banned users. Such measures as tagging people's talk pages should always be assessed in terms of practical purpose - if there is a practical purpose, then that weighs in favor of doing it.
We (the people of the Internet) now collectively have a great deal more experience about user bans from various kinds of places. I think there's an argument for actually *deleting* and *salting* user pages of banned users. You wouldn't expect to see a nasty "This user is banned" notice at, for example, Facebook. They're just gone.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 16:27, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
I couldn't agree more. Offering people a graceful exit is the right thing to do: just and pragmatic both. And yet I have started having trouble getting banned user accounts renamed, something that used to be done with minimal fuss. I think we need to be clear that any banned user who asks for their account to be renamed to some generic "former user 12345" kind of thing, should get it, unless there's good reason not to. We should just say: sorry this project is not the place for you, no hard feelings, it's just how it is.
Being human, of course, most of us (especially I) fail to do this some of the time. That's why we have policies and guidance: to remind us of how it should be done. Guy (Help!) 22:55, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Please your meaning of "the sum of all knowledge"?

Dear Jimmy,

I'm sorry to disturb you.

  • Could you please tell us what the meaning is of SUM in your quote "Imagine a world in which every single person on the planet is given free access to the sum of all human knowledge. That’s what we’re doing." (Quotation Slashdot interview).

You could have meant for instance:

  1. the total of all knowledge, or
  2. the summary/gist etc. of all knowledge?

In publications etc. the Dutch chapter WMNL translates "the sum of all human knowledge" in a slogan simply as meaning "all knowledge". At Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#The_what.3F_of_all_knowledge.3F.3F there is a ongoing discussion without conclusion. So i ask you because only you can know what you meant. Thank you, Kind regards, Hansmuller (talk) 10:41, 3 July 2015 (UTC), Wikipedian in residence

Definitely my meaning is "summary". I wouldn't say "gist" as that word tends connote something about vagueness. But Wikipedia literally can't contain all knowledge for a number of reasons. And an encyclopedia is not, for example, a text book. And our entry on "China" for example really shouldn't be 10,000 pages long. It should provide a summary of what is known, and refer people to other sources to dig deeper. Where to stop is of course a very interesting question subject to thoughtful discussion - and of course Wikipedia can be (and is) much more comprehensive than traditional encyclopedias.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 16:20, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
Ha! I've misunderstood that phrase all these years. I assumed "sum" meant totality i.e. 3 is the sum of 1 plus 2. (Though I never thought it realisable, for the reasons given.) Was I alone? DeCausa (talk) 09:40, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Yet it would be far better to have a site consist of many pathways to knowledge - instead of pretending that it consists of simple demonstrable fact. A very large number of articles currently present opinions as though they were fact - which causes a great deal of misinformation being presented to readers. Collect (talk) 16:26, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

I believe the correct answer is 42. --Boson (talk) 12:58, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
It should be possible to compile a Wikipedia that contains some fraction of human knowledge, but such that via the internal wiki links everything gets defined in terms of only basic physics and mathematics. Such a Wikipedia can be transmitted to some alien civilization or it can be used to program AIs to make them understand us. Count Iblis (talk) 21:02, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
Wikipedia is already used as input to natural language processing AIs as-is, one of which won on "Jeopardy" and another of which was recently shown to be able to provide more accurate Google results than PageRank, as discussed here back in March. Converting it to an interlingua is unnecessary. There will always be plenty of room for improvement, though. In twenty years when US copyright law gives contributors the right to rescind their license grant, I hope we will see authorship attribution not just by quantity, but weighted by readership and information-theoretic novelty ("surprise.") EllenCT (talk) 22:19, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

PD-Art and minor 3D elements

File:P.G._Wodehouse_-_My_Man_Jeeves_-_1st_American_edition_(1920_printing).jpg has no 3D elements that couldn't be trivially reproduced by simply applying a gradient and a bit of horizontal compression to the left side of the out-of-copyright book dust jacket. I say this should come under {{PD-Art}}, and, barring a legal requirement, would prefer not to crop out part of the dust jacket. However, a debate has opened up here. Would you mind weighing in? Adam Cuerden (talk) 08:27, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

I'm afraid that having read your description here, the description on the File; page, and the debate, I find that everyone seems to be taking for granted some well known facts about the provenance of the image that I don't know. The 'gradient' or 'spine' - what's that? What is the source of the image. What is the original? Is this a photo of a book? Just trying to get the full set of facts before offering any thoughts!--Jimbo Wales (talk) 15:49, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
  • It's a scanned copy of a 1920 edition of My Man Jeeves, taken from the Bonhams website (acceptable on Wikipedia as the underlying work is PD in the US, and the Foundation has held that faithful reproductions of two dimensional public domain works do not attract their own copyrights). The question is whether the book spine (i.e. the part of the book facing outwards when it's on a bookshelf) would be considered free as well, de minimis (too little to worry about), or a copyright violation which need to be cropped out altogether (like frames on paintings). Adam is saying that the effect of the scan fading out is easy to reproduce by digitally applying a gradient in photo editing software, and the shape of the dust jacket could be modified by digitally "squishing" part of the file. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 16:06, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
Indeed. I'm basically saying that we have a Public domain dust jacket, but a small bit on the left is tilted in around the spine of the book. However, the exact same effect produced by it being 3D could be added to a genuinely 2D scan of the dust jacket simply by applying a couple minor, and mathematically fairly simple image distortion. It's something like if this was the 2D public-domain work:

AAABBBCCCDDDEEEFFFGGGHHH...
AAABBBCCCDDDEEEFFFGGGHHH...
AAABBBCCCDDDEEEFFFGGGHHH...
AAABBBCCCDDDEEEFFFGGGHHH...

Then what we have in the image under discussion would be something like:

ABCCDDEEEFFFGGGHHH...
ABCCDDEEEFFFGGGHHH...
ABCCDDEEEFFFGGGHHH...
ABCCDDEEEFFFGGGHHH...

Obviously, that's not perfect, but I think it gives you an idea.

Come to think of it, I should probably also mention the other thing: This shows every sign of being a purely mechanical reproduction. Compare File:Charles_Kingley_-_1899_Westward_Ho!_cover_2_-_Original.tif which is just a book set on the scanner and scanned. The effects seen at the spine of the book are identical, though the difference between spine and cover is more pronounced in mine, as there was no dust jacket. Adam Cuerden (talk) 17:23, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

It's not clear to me what any of this discussion about how easy it would be to make a 2D jacket look 3D has to do with anything. My point is that this image does not seem to be a straightforward case of the kind described over at Commons:Commons:When to use the PD-scan tag or Commons:Commons:When to use the PD-scan tag, which seems to be as close as we have to a policy on the Bridgeman v. Corel case we're relying on to use the image. Indeed, I think this image seems closer to some of the cases described there as not being eligible (coins, curved stained-glass windows, etc)- but I think we'd have to ask a lawyer to be sure either way. My uncertainty is justifies my opposition at FPC, and our collective uncertainty (if we have a collective uncertainty) is surely enough to question the retention of the image on Wikipedia. Josh Milburn (talk) 17:29, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
@J Milburn: It shows clear signs of being produced through a purely mechanical process. Perhaps the issue here is not {{PD-ART}} but mere Threshold of originality, of which a purely mechanical copy has none. That's actually even explicitly mentioned in Bridgeman: In a section that begins by quoting Laddie, the quote of which includes the text: "For this reason it is submitted that a person who makes a photograph merely by placing a drawing or painting on the glass of a photocopying machine and pressing the button gets no copyright at all;" the judge's discussion explicitly invokes that point: "Plaintiff nevertheless argues that the photocopier analogy is inapt because taking a photograph requires greater skill than making a photocopy and because these transparencies involved a change in medium. But the argument is as unpersuasive under British as under U.S. law." - in otherwords, mechanical copying is less copyrightable than a photograph of a 2D work would be. Adam Cuerden (talk) 17:36, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
Ok, thanks. Obviously I'm not a legal expert, and my opinion on this sort of thing should carry no very special weight. So I'll just enumerate some of the factors I would use in making this decision. First, it looks very much to me like someone just jammed the book on a scanner and pushed the button. So no new copyright would arise from that, for sure. If there is any reason to think that someone took a flat image and then modified it to look like a 3d image, then I suppose that might give rise to a marginally plausible claim of creativity and copyright, but as has been pointed out, it's just applying a gradient in photoshop so not really particularly interesting or creative. And it's quite unlikely that is what happened anyway. As a practical matter, there is also the question of value and the question of how likely the source is to even care about this - do they regard it as a valuable creative work or is it just a quickly scanned image on their website for the purpose of auctioning this historical object. If it's the latter (it is, I think) then the most likely chain of thought they will have is that it's a good thing to have images of things they sell in Wikipedia - indeed, in another context, I can see us having a tedious debate about COI and whether they were spamming us (if they uploaded this and dozens of similar images and peppered them around).
One thing that our work with GLAM institutions has taught us is that we almost certainly need not take an adversarial attitude. Probably someone in the UK (from Wikimedia UK perhaps) could reach out to Bonhams and say "Hey, you have a lot of basic photos of important historical things on your website, here's a list of reasons why you might want to release those images under a free license or mark which ones you regard as being in the public domain." Done well, such requests could do a lot of good.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 11:09, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Agree wholeheartedly about the possible requests. Bonhams and similar auction houses have a veritable trove of imagery which could be useful for the project and the public in general. Collaboration with them would would be very nice. It's happened before, too. Godot13 has already negotiated releases with Heritage Auctions, and the results have been pretty stunning, including this this Featured Picture of an 1803 coin from the Dutch East Indies and this one of an 1804 dollar. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 14:49, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

My god

Are you really jimmy wales. Wow, I don't understand why you are editing wikipedia being the founder of wikipedia?. Please respond!!!!. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.102.228.2 (talk) 10:03, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Jimmy may or may not respond here, but this is his talk page and he often does respond. If you look at the section above he's responded a couple times. Why on earth would you be surprised that the founder of Wikipedia would be editing Wikipedia?--S Philbrick(Talk) 14:46, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
Wikipedia is much larger and much more prominent today than it was in its early days. We are used to Jimbo being around here, but someone who only joined Wikipedia recently, who has seen interviews with Jimbo on CNN or the BBC, may be surprised that anyone can just walk into his virtual office here and have a chat with him. Count Iblis (talk) 15:36, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
Jimmy isn't editing wikipedia IP, in fact he's barely edited it in ten years.♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:14, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
His most recent edit: Special:Diff/670105136. Dustin (talk) 16:17, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
Besides editing Wikipedia directly himself, Jimbo also edits Wikipedia indirectly by using us has his autonomous bots :) . Count Iblis (talk) 16:30, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Is this okay?

Jimbo, is this an okay series of edits, or is this prohibited by the Terms of Use? The editor has been pointed out in the media since 17 June 2014 (Odwyerpr.com), but nobody seems to make a fuss that a politician is working on Wikipedia to improve coverage of his fringe party. If this were a Republican or a Democrat, it would be splashed on HuffPo, Slate, and DailyKos. I get the sense that nobody's paying attention to conflict of interest editing any more, ever since the Terms of Use were modified last year. It's as if the legal strengthening of the official position has had an inverse effect on community vigilance. - 70.192.130.126 (talk) 21:15, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

I always recommend against such editing. Perhaps a polite note to Mr. Feinstein would be helpful as a start. Blocking the account would be a reasonable step as well.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 23:31, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
I agree wholly with Jimbo so I have blocked the account. Thanks IP!--5 albert square (talk) 01:23, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
Well, I meant blocking him if the results of the polite note as a helpful start were not favorable. I find that most of the time when something like this happens it's the result of ignorance or a grievance that should be addressed in some way. Not all of the time, of course. --Jimbo Wales (talk) 07:07, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
Yup, I admit I got that wrong. I've unblocked him and left a lengthy message on his talk page giving my views where I think he went wrong with his edits. I've also apologised to him and asked him to drop me a line on my talk page if he has any questions. In the meantime, I'm off for an extra big slice of this! :)--5 albert square (talk) 23:54, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Unsourced base pay in BLPs

IP asked to go away by Jimbo
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Jimbo, there is a BLP on Wikipedia right now that has received over 120,000 page views in the past three days. It says: "Her base pay was $220,000 plus substantial bonuses." There is no footnote on this claim. The footnotes on the sentences before and after that quote do not mention anything about $220,000. Knowing that you are a champion of accuracy over privacy (at least in Europe, anyway), what would you recommend that we loyal Wikipedians do? Should we delete the sentence from the BLP, or should we dig around the Internet for a reliable source that will substantiate the $220,000 base pay claim? As a comparison, even though Sue Gardner's base pay was publicly reported for a number of years, her BLP contains no information about her past salary levels. Please help us through this perplexing issue with your wisdom. - 2601:42:C102:B8DD:EC87:F5F2:E5A4:C23D (talk) 23:14, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

"Knowing that you are a champion of accuracy over privacy (at least in Europe, anyway)" is a highly dishonest statement on multiple levels.
We should obviously delete such unsourced information.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 23:18, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
Nevermind the statement about accuracy and privacy, that was just a zinger for you. What if the $220,000 was specifically drawn out in a New York Times article hinging on matters of compensation? Regardless, this "we" you refer to cannot include us lowly IP address proles, because we are not entitled to edit the BLP in question for another 4 weeks. It's under full protection. - 2601:42:C102:B8DD:EC87:F5F2:E5A4:C23D (talk) 23:21, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
That's right, Mr. 2601, the "we" does not include you. Go away.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 23:28, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
If someone wanted to write a PhD thesis on disingenuous behavior, they could certainly find plenty of research material among the questions posted on this talk page. By the way, folks editing in good faith from IP addresses can open an account quite easily at any time. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 23:32, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
There's probably a fair bit of PhD material found in the disingenuous answers to the questions posted on this talk page, too! - 50.144.2.158 (talk) 04:52, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
IPv6 addresses are a dream come true for people who want to do this sort of thing. At least with IPv4 there is some way to keep track of where the edits are coming from. Mr. 2601 undermines his/her original argument by not creating a user account, which would be easy to do.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 06:38, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
What would be the point of creating a user account, only to have it blocked by a self-righteous admin? Further, what is the sound of one hand clapping? - 2601:42:C102:B8DD:5D3:FD4C:FC66:A731 (talk) 10:29, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
Yawn. You have turned up on Jimbo's talk page with something that could have been raised as an edit request at Talk:Ellen Pao.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 10:49, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
And the purpose, as far as I can tell, was just the "zinger" - i.e. just swinging by to gratuitously harass me.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 11:05, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
New forum posting on WO. Tiny share of hosting cost. Comcast IPv6 to post from PA. Comes with the job. Snarky post to JimboTalk. Priceless Worthless. JoeSperrazza (talk) 11:15, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
It is pretty clear from the writing style that Mr. 2601 from Comcast has been on Jimbo's talk page before, and that he/she is not here to build an encyclopedia. [Personal attack removed] As the saying goes, Who was that masked man anyway?--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 11:28, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
Wikipedia's full of people not here to build an encyclopedia Ian, there's a worrying number of people on here who are a waste of space and care more about civility or silly issues than content.♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:48, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
Indeed. Mr. 2601 seems to know a great deal about Wikipedia, but has little interest in contributing to it. This gives some pointers as to where he may come from. Anyway, nothing that he/she says is worth taking seriously unless the deliberate concealment of identity stops.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 12:56, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
Ah yes, the "informed" newbie, a certain type of editor. The typical sockpuppet newbie who seems to develop a learned knowledge of wikipedia protocol and jargon within minutes of joining and who seems especially intent on forcing something, like an infobox, yet have never edited wikipedia before. Hmm.♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:01, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
In this case, it was always obvious who it was from the content and style, including the ipv6 Comcast address. It must feel strange to spend the better part of a decade attacking someone publicly and privately in an obsessive fashion, with as close to zero impact as possible. A wasted life, kind of sad if you ask me.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 15:54, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
Every website has its trolls, some are more hardcore ones than others though! ♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:32, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
Wikipedia being open to all, if you work on building the encyclopedia for any length of time you have the possibility of attracting your own personal stalker who considers pretty much anything you do a personal affront, and who considers it their sacred duty to "expose" the person they fixate on. It's really quite pathetic, but for some reason they just can't quite seem to figure out why no one else sees their actions as heroic. -Guy Macon (talk) 17:03, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
Without disagreeing, I do feel like people are overthinking this. 2601 says there's a BLP with an unsourced fact in it. We know what to do with unsourced facts in BLPs. That's all there is to discuss here. In this case there is a source (I don't know how good a source a recode.net liveblog is, but it's cited in the next sentence) and it says she said the figure was $400,000. It doesn't actually report in its own voice that the pay was $400,000, so I'm thinking to delete the number entirely pending better data. 2601 deserves thanks for spotting a possible error (at least, an error according to the conservative policies we have in place) and then we can be done with it. If BLP is Wikipedia's most important policy, then nothing should deter us from correcting this normally, though I vote 2601 gets a solid smack with a rotten beached whale for posting this here out of interpersonal motives rather than just fixing the error. Wnt (talk) 16:59, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
The thing is, I removed it personally when I read the original posting. If it's back, it's because someone replaced it. I do not think we should encourage 2601 to fix errors - we should encourage him to find a better use of his life than a futile campaign.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 11:06, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
Oh - there were actually two articles with the statement. I got this one and you got that one. I suppose that some summary-style editing could be done to eliminate other duplicated text in the two articles. Wnt (talk) 22:47, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Concerning Tweet By British MP

Closing discussion by IP geolocated to the UK and now banned for personal attack and admin harassment.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.


Hello I am a Wikipedia user concerned with safety issues. This British MP and Government Minister is tweeting, sharing an article that makes serious allegations about about User:Jimbo_Wales. The allegations are very serious and appear so well sourced they cannot be denied. Is Jimmy man enough to answer them? 82.9.92.213 (talk) 18:55, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

I wonder what Doug Weller, MarkBernstein and Shii think? 82.9.92.213 (talk) 19:00, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
Why am I being pinged here? MarkBernstein (talk) 19:04, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
No great worries here as it rehashes some very old stuff. Somebody must know how to use Google.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 19:05, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
Someone is trying to slander you by connecting your name to pedophilia. Standard 'gater smear campaign. There were calls to comment here among The Faithful, so we can expect more of this.--Jorm (talk) 19:06, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
You're kidding, right? MarkBernstein (talk) 19:09, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
Because you are mentioned in the article, MarkBernstein. @Ianmacm: the whole PIE debacle was thought to be ancient history. Hardly slander, Jorm, the article is very well sourced. It does not call MarkBernstein a paedophile. 82.9.92.213 (talk) 19:11, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
(edit conflict)I'm sure glad this well-sourced article doesn't call me a paedophile. So, 82.9.92.213, why am I being pinged here? MarkBernstein (talk) 19:18, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
I doubt that bringing up his name in an article about paedophilia is really consistent with journalistic ethics. Gamaliel (talk) 19:13, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
Perhaps it is time to take up the issue of whether or not the blog's author, Vordrak, is here to build an encyclopedia. Gamaliel (talk) 19:13, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
He is clearly not here to build an encyclopedia. He is here to shill his "journalism".--Jorm (talk) 19:18, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
Another question: should socks be allowed on this page? --Jules (Mrjulesd) 19:16, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
It also looks like someone has hired the services of Rent-a-Controversy from Wikipediocracy. Some things never change.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 19:21, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Greece

It seems strange to me that there is not a separate item in the "In the News" section of Wikipedia's front page about the Greek bailout referendum. Some 6 million people voted in this referendum, and its implications have been the main topic of conversation here in Europe for the last several days. Everybody is holding their breath and it does look like history in the making. If that's not the definition of "in the news" then what is? If events of this importance don't make it to the "In the News" section of Wikipedia's front page, then is it really worth having the "In the News" section there at all? ... 62.212.110.172 (talk) 13:10, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

That would be where it says "Ongoing events: Greek debt crisis"? – iridescent 13:20, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
If you aren't aware of it, there is a dedicated page where these types of discussions are located: Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates. Please feel free to draft a nomination for your suggestion or to contribute to the other discussions there. Deli nk (talk) 15:27, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

News article in the register mentions you

Same old banned editor, same old nonsense
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Here [7] Heads up, Buttercup! (talk) 15:38, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, Single Purpose Account.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 15:49, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
I am here for you, buddy! Heads up, Buttercup! (talk) 15:50, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
Center right party from Europe says reports saying the internet would break are inaccurate? That sucks. That means internet will break soon. Well it was fun while it lasted. Popish Plot (talk) 16:07, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
And a follow up article in The Register which reports on the belated disclaimer added to the editorial Jimbo published in The Guardian. It's an embarrassment not only for Jimmy but for the WP community as well. -- — Keithbob • Talk • 17:11, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

'One Vast Leap' The truth!

Dear Mr Wales,

It's that time of year again, moon landing references will start appearing everywhere. What I don't understand is why everyone is saying 'giant leap' instead of 'vast leap', it's clear from the recording that he said 'vast' and so I'm citing that in my Neil Armstrong edit as proof of this misquote. However, I keep getting reverted - it seems people are listening with their eyes and not with their ears. Surely truth will out, I would welcome your support here. :-) Sunflowertree (talk) 17:27, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

http://www.biography.com/people/neil-armstrong-9188943#death-&-legacy Also I suggest you read [8]. The second is the commissioned biography of Armstrong himself, and is confirmed by the man who said it to be giant. If you want to try and argue with Neil Armstrong, good luck? 65.29.77.61 (talk) 05:51, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
Nope. [9] Troll elsewhere. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:33, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
I have listened to the recording many times utilising various acoustic analysis software and have come to this conclusion, would you be good enough to listen again? "An encyclopedia presents knowledge; it is not a bestiary of delusions in which the length of coverage is based on the number of believers." Kiefer.Wolfowitz [10] Sunflowertree (talk) 18:45, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
There seems to be some stuff on the web about this [11][12]. To me, it sounds like clearly "giant" - but that's the result of a model in my mind where the audio is being cut out to some extent. The "g" in "giant" is practically eaten, going wherever the "a" went (though he may have simply said something more like "fra man" in the first place, per Texas? accent). But I think I hear the "g" to some degree. Someone else has to convert the "n" sound I hear to "s" with a similar sort of retrothinking, but I suppose they can do it. Meanwhile I'd give q:List_of_misquotations a big "[better] citation needed" on this point. Wnt (talk) 19:17, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for having an open mind on this; conditioned listening could be a real obstruction when it comes to correctly quoting the quite possibly most famous speech of all time. Sunflowertree (talk) 19:32, 8 July 2015 (UTC)


The recording isn't particularly clear (for obvious reasons), and I'd agree with Wnt that 'fra man', along with a clipped 'g' in 'giant' can be heard - but there is no way that he says 'vast' as I hear it. Not that it really matters how I hear it - we go by published sources, and they all agree regarding 'giant'. If Sunflowertree wants to convince the world otherwise, Wikipedia isn't the place to do it. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:38, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
"Wikipedia isn't the place to do it." But apparently Wikiquote is, as Wnt points out above. :) Deli nk (talk) 19:49, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
Not any more, it isn't. [13] AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:07, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
Check this out https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Neil_Armstrong It says Armstrong said "one small step for a man!" That kind of ruins the whole quote if true because it was all of humanity taking a giant step not just a man. Popish Plot (talk) 13:15, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Good luck, Mr. Gorsky. --108.38.204.15 (talk) 00:01, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Sunflowertree, I've listened to that recording now quite a few times and to me it sounds like "giant". Several reliable sources also state that it is "giant" that he says, including NASA's website. We go by what is verifiable on Wikipedia.--5 albert square (talk) 01:18, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
WP:OR Nyth63 12:52, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
Assuming that the Many-worlds interpretation is correct, the truth is relative, as there are parallel universes where different things happened. E.g. there exists a parallel world where Neil Armstrong and Edwin Aldrin died on the Moon. While all possibilities that are not ruled out by the laws of physics can happen, not all possibilities are equally likely. One can peak into a "nearby" parallel world from our world by considering the most likely way a counterfactual scenario would have unfolded such that the universe would still be very similar to the one we find ourselves in. E.g. we pretty much know what speech Nixon gave in response to the failure of the Moon landings, see here.
Similarly, there likely does exists a World where Sunflowertree is right, but in such a World Wikipedia most likely has different content such that the account of the Moon landing agrees with the point he's making. The World where Sunflowertree is right and Wikipedia is wrong also exists, but most likely that's a World where Wikipedia never became a reliable encyclopedia, it most likely was taken over by POV warriors, Jimbo most likely left that project a long time ago. Worlds where Sunflowertree is right, Wikipedia is wrong, yet Wikipedia is using policies very similar or identical to the one we use, are exceedingly unlikely. They do exist, but they have an astronomically small probability amplitude. Count Iblis (talk) 15:57, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
That's heavy man! Nyth63 01:08, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
We would need a reliable source that comes from that alternate universe then. Can't say we pretty much know what Nixon said about the failed moon landings in that universe. That space.com link comes from this universe so it's unreliable. Popish Plot (talk) 16:03, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
To me it always sounded like he said "one giant gleep for mankind." He must have had a bad wifi connection. Neutron (talk) 23:08, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Quiz view

I have started Wikipedia:Quiz view (WP:QV). The concept can be used if and when the software and the community are ready for it.
—Wavelength (talk) 02:44, 10 July 2015 (UTC) and 18:49, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Heather Bresch

FYI - I've started an RFC here about whether a controversy should have a dedicated sub-section on a BLP page, per WP:CRITICISM. I originally pinged you about this page here about six months ago. While I haven't seen you at the article much, you have repeatedly expressed an interest in it, so I thought I would invite you and your stalkers to participate.

It's a bit frustrating to me, because in my volunteer role I am always slapped with WP:CRITICISM, even when there is a strong argument for a dedicated section about a particular controversy. In my COI role, I get the opposite advice and am accused of "hiding" controversies or criticisms. I have even seen the same editor make conflicting arguments in nearly identical cases where one was a volunteer page and the other was COI. So let the accusations of PR spin commence and tickle me just plain confused. CorporateM (Talk) 01:28, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 08 July 2015

Isn't it time for a redesign?

Does anybody know if we are planning on updating the main page design and standard skin anytime soon? Anything towards looking more like Wikiwand would be a major improvement.♦ Dr. Blofeld 08:18, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Speak for yourself! The Wikiwand mobile interface may be prettier (albeit far more data-intensive) than the official Wikipedia mobile app, but their desktop site is horribly cluttered, even when you leave aside their tiresome habit of disregarding the layout of the article and second-guessing what the "appropriate" lead image should be regardless of what relevance it has to the subject. Remember, the Wikipedia Main Page needs be usable not just for users with largescreen monitors and broadband access, but in places like rural India which are still operating on dial-up, and to be usable on devices ranging from mobile phones to old 640x480 NTSC monitors. – iridescent 08:44, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
Yes, it does look cluttered now, they've overdone it, but I remember the original wikiwand design was at least more appealing. Also having the large main image, on wikipedia you could simply select an image you want to appear rather than the "second-guessing". The current design though is really looking dated in 2015. At least the wikiwand design idea with the larger main image and the content neatly filed down the side and the hover function with summaries would be an improvement anyway.♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:25, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
One of the biggest issues with this is the intentional shrinking of images. Take Giuseppe Verdi, where I'm currently in a rather desperate fight against everything being turned into ridiculously small 130px-wide thumbnails, overriding all user preferences. Adam Cuerden (talk) 10:33, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
Tell me about it. The "everything needs to look the same" warriors have regrouped from their defeat over infoboxes and are making image size the new battlefront in their campaign against anything that doesn't conform to their own "rules are rules" mentality. – iridescent 12:04, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
Perhaps the sensible thing is an explicit guideline addition about not going too small. I think there's many cases where a big image is justified; it's hard to think of anything outside of a gallery where too small is justified. Adam Cuerden (talk) 13:27, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
  • I'm fine with the Main page staying just like it is. Jusdafax 12:15, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
So are many people. that's why we never get anywhere because people don't like change.♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:36, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:2015 main page redesign proposal/draft/Guy Macon. Number of comments at Wikipedia:2015 main page redesign proposal: Zero. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:14, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
You could propose to give every editor $100,000 dollars on wikipedia and there'd still be disputes. Nearly ten years since it was changed. About time it was modernized. How something is presented has a big impact on general perception.♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:11, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
What qualifies as "modernizing"? Going by the trend at other websites, it appears to be adding 500 KB of JavaScript loaded from two dozen external sites—including, of course, all the ads and "social media" trackers—infinite scroll, "optimizing" your page titles and content for the best "shareability" and "viral buzz", and making everything "touchscreen-friendly" by adding a bunch of whitespace and removing text hyperlinks. Oh, don't forget Disqus comments and Facebook account integration. The general public doesn't look at the main page anyway; they get here through search engine results. Huh, I'm a little surprised infinite scroll is a redlink. Anyone think that deserves an article? --108.38.204.15 (talk) 11:06, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
Improving the graphics and look/useability of the website so it looks like the year is 2015 rather than 2005.♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:22, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
@108.34.204.15: Well said! I don't know when the Internet became a conformity contest, but the new face of the Web flat out sucks. Formats don't have to change - there's no reason to "modernize" (conformize) without a reason. If change is made, it should be from our own evaluation of what makes the site better. Wnt (talk) 00:20, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
↑ What he said. Wikipedia isn't Twitter and shouldn't be trying to be, and there's a lot of value in familiarity, especially on a site like this where many of the users aren't regulars and will just get confused if things aren't where they remember them, and where many users are on restricted bandwidth or low-res displays. If anything, we should be looking to lose elements from the main page (or to add a "hide DYK, TFA, ITN and all the other extraneous crap next time I visit" cookie option to readers), not to add more; I suspect 95% of readers would prefer the main page just to be a search bar and a few "how to search" and "how to edit" links. – iridescent 00:28, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
I'm trying Wikiwand right now and will remove it in a few minutes. I can't find my tools and the links I'm used to on the top and on the left, and (I find this very amusing) my own talk page still somehow contains a version I archived months ago, in the same inept way as the mobile version of Wikipedia on my iPhone did for months. Something is cached strangely somewhere, but Wikipedia on iPhone through Safari doesn't have that problem. Anyway, Wikiwand looks a little slicker, and I'm going back to the old way. Drmies (talk) 19:35, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
I've kind of got the hots for that kinky looking woman with the glasses lying on the sofa on the wikiwand presentation page LOL. The original with the white text header on a large photo without the clutter was a lot more attractive, see this. I think such a feature would be great on wikipedia, but obviously with a manual image selected, not automatic selection of course.♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:10, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
  • They can't even get Visual Editor to work with some of the skins they already have, I understand! I suspect we won't be seeing a new skin soon... Carrite (talk) 04:12, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Rather than a redesign of the mainpage, resources would be better spent devising a functional mobile interface. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:05, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

My opinion is that this Wikipedia style is pretty boring but that's a good thing. Keep it simple (stupid) <---a common saying I don't think anyone here is stupid. Wikipedia is about the facts, jack. Maybe if it was more flashy it would encourage more people to come and be editors. But I doubt that. It would still be the same content, plus it might turn off the current Wikipedia editors who are here, who are all about the facts jack. And if they aren't about the facts why are they wiki editors? To troll, if so who cares what they want amiright? Basically I agree with iridescent who said this isn't twitter and shouldn't try to be. Popish Plot (talk) 14:42, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
Did you look at Wikipedia:2015 main page redesign proposal/draft/Guy Macon? That proposal is the exact opposite of "more flashy". --Guy Macon (talk) 16:44, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
Yes, but it also removes all reason for having a main page. It's content-free. That's basically the sidebar. Adam Cuerden (talk) 16:47, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
Good point. We don't want to be a miserable failure because our main page is too simple -- like Google.
If the current Wikipedia main page is the sort of thing you like, here are some other webpages webpages that you might enjoy:
--Guy Macon (talk) 17:27, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
The current webpage, from what I can tell, is about 70KB, including images. Your proposal brings down the size a fair bit, but also removes all content. Google.com is 52 KB, the first of your examples is 595KB. Your proposal may shave a few kilobytes off, but it also severely damages our featured content processes, likely kills off Did you know?, In the news and On this day, and generally does far, far more harm than good. Adam Cuerden (talk) 21:00, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
I personally see no reason why Did you know?, In the news, and On this day can't each be a sentence and a link to a separate, more extensive page. That being said, it would be a simple matter to have both versions and let them be user selectable. That's the best way to introduce any major change; you make it selectable with the default the way it is now, then you experiment with giving a percentage of new users each default and keep statistics to see how many switch. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:18, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
  • I'm also fine with the way the main page currently is, and agree that the efforts should be placed into something that is needed more. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:59, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
What, like banning editors from taunting others about civility issues?♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:08, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
No, by channeling that work effort into making more good articles. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:27, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

I don't understand the aversion to change and the automatic rejection of the term "modernizing". I definitely understand not wanting to look and feel like Twitter, but come on, the main page looks dated as is. There's no need for the toddler toy colors, or the darker colors behind black headers. Also, "modernizing" does not mean adding tons of javascript, etc. As a web designer, that comment was appalling. Modernization (in this sense) is about design, not function. Simple CSS changes. For instance doesn't the "From today's featured article" section and its wrapper look way more appealing than the "In the news" section and its wrapper? I only changed a few lines of CSS with devtools. No harm done, but it's also a lot more appealing. Maybe "simplification" is a better word than "modernization". Jacedc (talk) 22:19, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

I would agree in changing the main page header fonts to Lato or something of the sort, but I think the article text should stay Arial/Helvetica. I've actually changed Wikipedia's fonts various times using my own personal css page, and while my first reaction was "oh yeah this is much nicer", I found over time that it's actually pretty distracting. Jacedc (talk) 22:48, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
Jacedc, you say you «don't understand the aversion to change and the automatic rejection of the term "modernizing"» which is a good point. But note that plain rejection of modernizing is has silly as adhesion for anything label sa "modernizing" just because. And quite often that is the sole argument. We nee to modernize *that*. Why? Because modern is better, duh! :-) That said, yes, the main page could look better, but note that stability and simplicity is probably a good thing for a site presenting itself as a reputable source of information. - Nabla (talk) 01:03, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Well this is a possible update. Basically the top half is the same, but the bottom half (Other areas, other languages, sister projects) is brought to the same style as the bottom half. As an incremental improvement it might be appropriate.

Well I think the best way to tackle improvements is in an incremental fashion. Wholesale changes can be alienating, as I've experienced this in a lot of web-sites. --Jules (Mrjulesd) 11:54, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

The discussion here tempted me to take a swipe at it. I do agree with others that there is too much junk on the main page. Right now, at top we advertise a bunch of portals, but the portals are ghost towns, stuff that doesn't get updated for years. We have two different #if statements to check for the existence of templates which I don't see what they really add - the first has only been used to announce a few random article milestones and the second, well, I'm not quite sure what it does. I think we can have the portals, other wikiprojects, other languages etc. off links from the main page and focus only on the meat. Though I also threw in links to WP:Top 25 Report and the WP:statistics pages under ITN, because they seem relevant. Anyway, keep trying, people. Someday... we'll come up with something. I just don't want it to be Facebook-like something. Wnt (talk) 15:07, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

@Nabla: Well one reason to modernize a website is because modern trends lean towards simplicity. Not to mention, if you ignore those holes in your boat it's eventually gonna sink. Jacedc (talk) 02:32, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

A "trend" is not actually a reason; besides, Wikipedia actually has a dedicated mobile-friendly site, so one could argue on average it is keeping with the trend anyway. Looking back further, while the 2006 version of the Main Page looks quite familiar, the Wikipedia:Main Page alternative (Classic 2004) version delegates all the content sections (as someone proposed above) while going on at length with some of the sections I'd suggest minimizing now. I think the reasons for the 2004-2006 transition are pretty straightforward - in 2004, Wikipedia's content was much weaker, and people were much less familiar with what it was. Also, great effort was made to curate available articles into categories and subcategories for browsing, apparently because people couldn't assume WP:WHAAOE. A Main Page redesign should be in response to such organic factors, rather than trends. Wnt (talk) 10:15, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
Wikipedia has a mobile site, but I'm not sure I'd call it "mobile-friendly." Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:15, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

I guess even a slight tweak of those amateurish looking pastel colours the developers insist upon to a decent silver grey or something would be a start. Green and pink have no place on the front page of an encyclopedia. I agree completely about the portals too being redundant in 2015 and being unnecessary clutter. I think you'll find thst less than 1% of new page visitors actually click on them. Basically even if we changed those headers from pastel to sleeker looking silver shaded ones and darkened the sides with white on dark like wikiwand, which has the effect of emboldening the pages and framing them it would be a major improvement IMO. It doesn't have to be a radical change, but at least make an effort to make it look a bit sleeker/more professional.♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:02, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

I don't see what's so bad about some pastel colors in the bars. I'm starting to feel like the "modern" web is like the 1978 remake of Invasion of the Body Snatchers where if you show any emotion they make a funny noise in the back of their throat and start pointing fingers at you. Wnt (talk) 01:03, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
They're just not as classy looking as navy/silver/gold hues. The colour scheme of Iranica looks a lot more professional and suited to an encyclopedia IMO.♦ Dr. Blofeld 08:47, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
Oh, sure, looking at that site I'll admit they manage to look snootier than Wikipedia. All they have to do to accomplish that is to sacrifice two inches on either side of their publication to empty gray space, in order that it looks like a photocopy of an old-fashioned newsletter that was written in fine print to reduce printing costs. Ah, the sweet essence of professionalism, the subtle ways of the magic by which authority is granted! But by now I think Wikipedia has built up a little magic in its own right, and need not fear so much. Wnt (talk) 14:58, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
Those are all baseless and unnecessary comments. Professionalism is not snooty, nor does it magically grant any more authority than Wikipedia has, but it would show that we at least care. It's like refusing to mow your lawn in the name of not becoming one of those guys who constantly manicures their lawn. It's senseless. Basic cleanup/touchup is nothing to be afraid of. And yeah, those pastel colors have gots to go. Jacedc (talk) 03:03, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
I don't see how a slight update and polish would be "snooty" either. The main page is dated in web design, although I agree it looks better than some of the other awful wiki main pages.♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:00, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
I see nothing "professional" in choosing one color over another. Provided, of course, the text is readable; I wouldn't necessarily want some of those green-on-magenta text combinations from the exuberant early days of color monitors. The comment about lawns does penetrate to the heart of the matter, but not in a good way - the Colorado river does not flow to the sea largely because each person in California has felt compelled to make up his yard in the same way as everyone else, without regard for the sense of it. Only in the face of an absolute shortage for necessary agriculture have some finally yielded to nature. To quote the Pope, "A consumerist vision of human beings, encouraged by the mechanisms of today’s globalized economy, has a levelling effect on cultures, diminishing the immense variety which is the heritage of all humanity." This levelling, the thousand things done for a purely conformist appearance - often in the name of 'professionalism' - this is part of what diminishes the dignity of the individual person and converts him into more of a commodity, I think.
Now I'm not saying you're not allowed to prefer a different color - go on, propose all the schemes you want, whatever you like. What gets on my nerves is when you don't say that you dislike one color and prefer another, but try to tell me that one color is intrinsically bad, that it is unprofessional, that Wikipedia has to look like everyone else solely for the sake of looking like everyone else. That I will not accept. Wnt (talk) 11:37, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
It's a fact that most high end hotels and institutions for instance will opt usually for gold/navy/white/silver hues in a logo or design though, rather than bright rainbow or pastel colours. There is a reason for it, as certain colours and text fonts (gold, silver and navy especially) do infer a more professional/smarter appearance than others. Based on your argument we could design the main page in the colours of Mr. Blobby and nobody is going to think any less of us.♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:52, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
Wikipedia isn't a high end hotel - the rooms here rent for free. For most of us the faded paint and pastel colors of a low-end motel are a reassuring thing to see after a long drive. Wnt (talk) 20:09, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
As a web designer/developer who works with "professional" and "modern" trends, I can tell you there is a science behind it. It's not blind conformity, although it is conformity, it's conformity with a reason. Pastel colors on the web are intrinsically bad, outdated, and obnoxious. If we must have color, it should be of the flat variety. Regardless, no color is better (or rather, achromatic color is better), because it conveys sophistication. Sophistication is different from simplicity in that it's efficient and accomplishes more with less. So while Wikipedia shouldn't adopt a simplistic, minimalist design, it should be more sophisticated, opposed to how it is now, which is obnoxiously outdated. After all, the focus should be on the content, not on the color. By having an achromatic design, the focus becomes more on the content. It ultimately boils down to the most fundamental UX development principles. "People ignore design that ignores people." Jacedc (talk) 18:51, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
I'm not sure what you're proposing, and if you're doing it to focus on readability and the people using the site rather than trends, you might have a good idea - I don't know. I just know that when the typical site suffers a "modern" makeover (like The Intercept did yesterday) it involves stuff like mandating Javascript, much slower performance, sacrificing a tenth of the page to a banner whose only real purpose is to advertise Facebook and Twitter without getting paid for it, and not being able to finish reading an article without losing your place and being thrown into who knows where about something totally different. I really, really do not approve of this 'trend'. If it gets much worse I'll start to want xmodem back. Wnt (talk) 20:09, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

I still see no comment on this from anybody in the foundation. Are you all perfectly happy with it or can you see some valid points?♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:03, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Ellen Pao#"Reddit" vs. "reddit"

Hey, Jimbo! I was wondering if you could help me with this edit request. Thanks! —  WikiWinters ☯ 韦安智   00:20, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

You're already receiving guidance regarding this on the article's talk page? The admin that was advising you, @MSGJ:, has not been online much so quite possibly hasn't had the chance to respond to your most recent message yet.--5 albert square (talk) 22:00, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

A beer for you!

Cheers! —  WikiWinters ☯ 韦安智   00:24, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

More popular than Jesus on legal grounds

Sock blocked --NeilN talk to me 14:56, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Hello Jimmy! Several admins of English Wikipedia violate the rules here. I ask you take action against their actions (they must restore this section: Moral right). They think that millions victims of the Catholic Church are empty space (and John Lennon has no right be against this on legal grounds totally - not only moral right). Lennon never violated the English law om this issue (he never was punished, because his actions were legal). This looks so:

Moral right

Exist the reasons assume that John Lennon had the moral right to say so, because the history of Christianity contains a large number of crimes against simple people. The Inquisition and slavery - including (wrongdoings). Besides, he never violated the Blasphemy law, such information does not exist. Mick Jagger has supported the words of John in 1995 year. The legendary musician has said that The Beatles were "bigger than Jesus". Lennon gave understand that he strongly respects Human rights, even in 1964 year, when The Beatles have refused to perform at a segregated concert at the Gator Bowl in Jacksonville, Florida. John said on this issue:

"We never play to segregated audiences and we aren't going to start now. I'd sooner lose our appearance money."[1][2]

References

  1. ^ The Beatles banned segregated audiences, contract shows
  2. ^ The Rolling Stone Interview: Jagger Remembers

Kind Regards! - Portret8822 (talk) 01:22, 15 July 2015 (UTC).

What is your point?
What do you think needs changing? 88.104.17.251 (talk) 06:41, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
It seems to me that the editor wants that paragraph adding (though obviously this is the wrong forum for requesting it). Mr Potto (talk) 08:24, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
This is simply long term disruptive sockpuppeteer User:Need1521 / community banned user User:Crazy1980 (see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Need1521) back with his usual complaints to Jimbo (see diff or diff). Another of their socks has already been blocked and we can do the same with this one. Valenciano (talk) 09:46, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Jimmy and WP in The Register

A couple of articles in The Register this week bring out some interesting points about Jimbo's role in the politicization of WP. Here is the original article [14] and the follow up article in The Register that was prompted by a belated disclaimer added to Jimbo's editorial in The Guardian. I think this is something the community should be aware of and comment on if they feel the need. I hope that my post here won't be censored.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 17:23, 10 July 2015 (UTC) See my July 12th comment below for corrected links.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 19:58, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

looks debunked in the comments. Popish Plot (talk) 17:41, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
Pretty terrible attack piece - basically wants Commons converted to something like Getty Images, selling licenses, so that Wikipedia can buy licenses for images of buildings. I'd call it clueless, but I suspect they know exactly what they're doing. Adam Cuerden (talk) 19:22, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
Does anybody take The Register seriously? As far as I can tell, it is just an attack rag, the complete opposite of a reliable source. If it's in the Register, you should likely believe the opposite. Smallbones(smalltalk) 21:14, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
The Register is run by journalists, but it's a sort of gossip/attack site primarily focused on the tech sector. Over time, I've learned just how careful we need to be with sources that are advocating for a point-of-view, in this case that POV being that everybody and everything is corrupt. On a slightly related subject, it would be useful for someone to search for articles that cite the Register as a means for finding BLP violations. CorporateM (Talk) 21:53, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
Both of these pieces were written by Andrew Orlowski. Here's some good reading on his disgusting hatchet job writings about Larry Lessig a few years ago. Read all the way to the end to understand how long Orlowski pursues his agendas, including with "fabricated quotes". See also: a discussion about that. Over a decade ago he wrote an article about Wikipedia with the subtitle of "Look out, Old Guard - it's the Khmer Rouge in nappies" - he's ridiculous, always has been, and by my guess, always will be.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 22:09, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
I've heard Britsh Telecom was, for a time, worth less than the value of copper in their lines. Orlowski seems like the kind of person who'd advocate for them selling off all the copper and killing Britain's telephone service in the process. Commons is successful because it's free, not due to the profit Orlowski would make from it if he somehow grabbed control (in the process killing off its primary function). Aside: He also doesn't seem to understand the very concept of fair use. Adam Cuerden (talk) 22:29, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
I think it very lovely and kind of you to assume that his errors about fair use are the result of a lack of understanding.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 00:34, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
It was clearly undervalued if what you say is true, but that's the old economics student in me talking... Carrite (talk) 23:25, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
No necessarily, because you can't base the value of a company just on its assets - you have to include liabilities too. Mr Potto (talk) 10:56, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
I think both sides are being too "sophisticated" here; but it is in the nature of ours to explain things simply and we lose when we don't. As far as I understand, the objection to the EU report is based on it being a model or call for legislation - we should acknowledge that (and those who understand it should explain it better) so that people have something to understand between the strawman position that this is a bill that has to be stopped and the Register's implication that it doesn't mean anything, don't worry about it, your local legislators will read it and know what to do. Likewise the Register's claim that Wikipedia can pay to license images for money shouldn't be intentionally misread to suggest that Wikipedia become Getty Images - it should be clear that Wikipedia could pay various people to put stuff under CC distribution. Instead we should penetrate to the real issue, which is that if even a few professional photographers were getting paid to upload stuff to Commons, everyone else would feel like they were missing an opportunity, and before long the "volunteer" base would shrink to a few rank amateurs while everyone half good with even the smallest chance of payment holds out for a deal. Wnt (talk) 11:50, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for the discussion everyone. I seem to have bungled the links in my original post so here they are in a more accurate and coherent format:
For the record, a couple of earlier pieces by Orlowski as well:
(It should be noted that the Register has and always has had some very fine reporters working for it -- Jennifer Baker (@BrusselsGeek), for example, who currently has the Brussels beat, is outstanding, does her research, is respected on the ground, and really knows her stuff; and there are many others as well. Orlowski unfortunately (a) seems to have an animus against free content; and (b) often isn't as well informed as his reporters -- for example the columns he wrote on orphan works last year seemed to totally misunderstand the legislation, as well as some of the misunderstandings about wikipedia this time in points made above.)
As to whether it was appropriate for us to be concerned and react the way we did, I stand by the comment I put in to Orlowski's second piece that yes it was; I don't believe there would have been a vote of 502 to 40 against this clause and its outright disavowal by Oettinger without the massive reaction that came in to that clause. But I do regret I didn't put in my rebuttal to Orlowski sooner.
Were there slip-ups in Jimmy's piece for the Guardian? Yes, there were, as the corrections indicate. But people are human; mistakes happen. The piece was written under time pressure, and the key mistake wasn't Jimbo's, it was ours -- the volunteer wikimedians working on the campaign -- because we sent Jimbo a brief that was a bit too dull, and because we failed to brief him that many of the press reports in the UK had gone a bit over the top. So we hadn't emphasised the "holiday snaps" angle, and wrote that there was an EP resolution calling for an effective end to freedom of panorama, but hadn't warned him that press stories that the EP was legislating an end to freedom of panorama were over-egging it. Jimbo was asked at very short notice to turn that into a column for the Guardian, rightly assessed that the brief was too dry and dull, and wrote a far far stronger and more immediate piece, that actually had fire in it that people would care about. And got some nuances wrong. But the basic message was bang on: that freedom of panorama is worth fighting for, and that without it the world would be not as free, not as informed and not as culturally rich. Jheald (talk) 22:39, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
I don't think it's "bogus". This seems like playing semantics word games and getting off on a technicality. "The reason the scare is bogus is that the amendment is not draft legislation. The European Parliament cannot actually write legislation, unlike actual parliaments around the world. That's the European Commission's job, and we don't know exactly what it will propose as part of its Digital Single Market reforms." http://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/07/02/wikipedia_jumps_on_bogus_photo_scare_to_tell_us_the_internet_is_breaking_again/ Beware the EU bearing gifts. Popish Plot (talk) 13:23, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
It's sufficiently serious that all the MEPs representing my region had a position on it, and all were actively opposing it through their party groups at Brussels. Such things have a habit of becoming real if nobody challenges them. Guy (Help!) 21:50, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
  • El Reg playing Chicken Little and putting the boot into Wikipedia? That has literally never happened hundreds of times before. I have a reasonable idea who feeds them the poison, though to be fair I had hoped the departure of Cade Metz would result in a reduction in their output of anti-Jimbo propaganda. Guy (Help!) 14:15, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Refugees derail 2016 Wikimania?

This article "Mayor fears migrants will ruin Wikipedia event" is worrisome. The mayor doesn't quite sound like Donald Trump, but still, involving Wikimania with immigration issues is not a good move. Smallbones(smalltalk) 03:20, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Well, I don't think we're doing anything at all to involve Wikimania with immigration issues.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 13:07, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
It's just an example of what we call coatracking when it happens here. The mayor has issues with immigrants that may or may not be legitimate but have nothing to do with us, and is trying to use Wikimania to advance his agenda. Such efforts are best ignored. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:19, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
Well the story is they will be so busy looking after 60 immigrants they won't be able to help out Wikimania? If that sounds unlikely it probably is. Let's face it, they'll cope, if they want to that is. --Jules (Mrjulesd) 14:35, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

To be clear, I'm *not* saying that the WMF or anybody on Wikipedia is saying that immigration problems will close down Wikimania. Its the mayor who is saying that immigration problems *might* cause Wikimania 2016 to be "at risk of disappearing" (as quoted in the article). If the mayor is serious, then I think the WMF should look at the problem. If he is just coatracking or BSing I'll suggest that somebody at the WMF suggest to the mayor that he not involve immigration issues with Wikimania. I don't think ignoring it is the best option. Smallbones(smalltalk) 23:31, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Wikimania won't be derailed because as the article says: "The town will receive €200,000 in grants from the Wikimedia Foundation and a further €80,000 from the Cariplo Foundation, which assists projects that bring social value." The major wants more money, certainly not less. Count Iblis (talk) 19:13, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
I think it best to ignore it unless something further develops. It may have been (and I think most likely was) an offhand comment of no major significance. --Jimbo Wales (talk) 14:11, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Plastics, from CO2

Dear Dr. Wales, I have found our previous correspondence most beneficial. Would you please consider asking your colleagues on the continent to consider http://co2-chemistry.eu if it fits with their plans? Thank you for your kind consideration. Tim AFS (talk) 21:16, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, Jimmy Wales does not use the title "Dr.", nor has he earned a PhD or MD. He very well might have an honorary PhD and many people might feel that he has added more to the common knowledge base than most PhDs. Nevertheless, I'd use the title "Mr." or just no title at all. Jimbo, feel free to correct me. Smallbones(smalltalk) 18:59, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
Yes, I don't use the title Dr and would not consider myself in any way entitled to it.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 14:08, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
Plus you'd have to study for six whole years in Evil Medical School in Bruges to obtain a real doctorate like myself ;-)♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:40, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

WP:BITE

Yes, I know about appeals to Jimbo and whatever. But I also want this to be seen by more than the little cadre of little men who watch over the precious academic journals. I tried to create a new article recently, Exosomes and Microvesicles. This is a journal where some of the leading scientists in the growing exosomes field have been involved or published. It's the second journal devoted to the field. At the same time it is published by a "predatory" publisher. So who cares if you go by importance to the field or you want to "right great wrongs", this should be an article people can see, so if they Google the name, they know what the journal is and its reputation. Instead, I was savaged by this group of gatekeepers who keep everyone out who's not part of their little boy's club with their little acronyms. This journal was founded by two of the leading but controversial figures in the field. One of them happens to share part of a name with a dead and more famous scientist. So I was savaged for trying to Wikilink him, like there was anything else inaccurate about the piece, and now the article will be deleted because of pathetic "observations" by an all-male cast of the usual suspects. I think Wikipedia as a whole is a great thing, but the remaining problem is the way the male Admins (and come one, people, they are all male to an approximation) just knock down anyone who's new or has any new perspectives and control their tiny fiefdoms without scruple. When is Wikipedia going to take care of this problem? BlackSoxFan2015 (talk) 00:06, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

@BlackSoxFan2015: It would be useful if you could do the following things:
This level of specifity would make it easier for editors to evaluate your claims. CorporateM (Talk) 00:18, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
BlackSoxFan2015, so far I can see precisely zero evidence that the gender of contributors has any relevance to this - perhaps you would care to explain why you think it is? AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:23, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
@CorporateM and BlackSoxFan2015: I believe these are the correct links:
CabbagePotato (talk) 00:45, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
  • That AfD has a pretty high number of contributors, given that the matter of academic journals is somewhat obscure, and a lot of sour grapes in that last comment. Forgive me--I did not check if all the contributors to that AfD have penises. But that it is not, according to the AfD participants, indexed by the notable databases and that there is no secondary sourcing, yeah, that's usually a good enough reason for deletion. Penises or not, we need reliable indications of importance. Drmies (talk) 00:51, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
BlackSoxFan2015, I know it can be frustrating to see your work destroyed, but Randykitty's deletion rationale appears sound and at-a-glance it doesn't look like the article had any secondary sources. Secondary sources are ones published by reputable authors that are not affiliated with the events being reported on. They are the primary basis of Wikipedia articles. It's unlikely the Gender Gap is actually the culprit, rather than a routine policy-based deletion.
We do on the other hand need a lot of work on articles men tend not to have an interest in. Take a look at Dress for example. A lot of fashion topics are really under-served, unless they are on lingerie, models, etc. Women's studies also needs a lot of work and Category:Women in technology would give you buckets of articles about people that may need improvement.
If the gender gap is something you care about, I would encourage you to stick around and edit other articles; however regarding this article in particular, I don't see anything productive sprouting from it. CorporateM (Talk) 01:04, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
I just now had the time to read the article, the deletion debate, and the discussion here. If I were !voting, I think I would vote to keep the article, so I think we are well on the way towards an incorrect decision. However, I very strongly agree with those who are bewildered by accusations of sexism. Honestly, before I clicked to read about the journal I assumed there would be some kind of way to look at this as somehow gender related. Journal founded by women? No. About women? No. About women's health? No. A contributor being treated poorly because she's female? No.
I've even tried to look at it in this way: was the debate somehow "masculine" and "rough"? I do think there is something real in the notion that young male online communities can too often be inappropriately attacking and unkind. But this one? No, actually. It's a quite dry analysis of a rather dull editorial point.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 14:03, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

My 2¢.

I believe this unsigned IP post merely repeats an discussion from some weeks back. MarkBernstein (talk) 19:16, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

From time to time Wikipedia will be visited by journalists, celebrities and other people with influence over the wider community. It behooves us as scholars and Wikipedians to treat them in a professional and respectful way. We have let ourselves down. I went through the history for Auerbachkeller and he has not had any real resolution to the complaints he raised.

People on WP:BLPN acknowledged David Auerbach had suffered wrongful behavior but it was not in their silo so they did nothing. Auerbach may be many things but WP:FRINGE he is not.

Vordrak is blatantly in contact with a member of the British government since otherwise there is no way he could know about the letter to the UK chapter. Things said to him on Wikipedia will likely be seen by elected officials.

I went through the history for Vordrak This morning he had to raise a concern about a BLP violation although thankfully the user responsible Kookiethebird was summarily indeffed and even had his user page deleted by HJ Mitchell.

It also looks like some administrators have been very rude to Vordrak, which again is likely to be seen by public figures. Zad68 is currently the subject of a lengthy conversation on his talk page calling for his removal because he closed an AE and imposed a sanction on a user after 28 minutes. In between times, 'Zach' as he calls himself found time to complain Vordrak had sent him emails. Zach found the emails intimidatory but then also said, 'Vordrak you've sent me a number of emails, and to be honest, I haven't read most of them'. How can an administrator be intimidated by an email from a regular editor they had not read?

That looks like straightforward abuse of administrator powers to me.

I have decided to ping the arbitration committee. I would like them to engage with these visitors to our community and offer to help them with any concerns. Sorry, but AGK Courcelles DeltaQuad DGG Doug Weller Euryalus GorillaWarfare LFaraone NativeForeigner Roger Davies Salvio giuliano Seraphimblade Thryduulf Yunshui Guerillero.

Wikipedia is looking ridiculously unprofessional and we owe these newcomers an apology.

If someone is an expert, or celebrity or journalist or whatever . . . where is the reliable source that says so? No one will take people by their word here. Popish Plot (talk) 17:56, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 15 July 2015

Why isn't there a sexual harassment policy for English Wikipedia?

Despite all the intense discussions, the site leadership has refused to create a sexual harassment policy for English Wikipedia. You have thousands of pages of policies, an admonition to "Be bold!," and even so, no sexual harassment policy. The first time I created a redlink space where somebody could create a sexual harassment policy, it was reverted as an act of vandalism! And in fact, the current Arbcom, which is composed of 14 men and only one woman, keeps arguing that no sexual harassment policy is necessary. If site leadership is so concerned about protecting women, why is it opposing even having a sexual harassment policy? If you think you will intimidate us by saying we shouldn't "bash" an organization that refuses to create and enforce a sexual harassment policy, think again. Even Gandhi said a woman is justified in fighting to the death when her honour is attacked.
I actually rather like Mr. Wales, and have publicly stated that I will have one of the people who sexually harassed him on this site thrown out of any event I attend. However, what we need is a modern, enforceable policy that protects Mr. Wales and his volunteers. Appeals to just "be nice" don't work without a police force to back them up. A modern sexual harassment policy that is compatible with the operations of European and US law enforcement is far preferable to campaigns of counterharassment and vigilante justice.
Other open source projects have like the TODO Open Code of Conduct, that prohibit sexual harassment. Why can't this one? --Djembayz (talk) 16:14, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
Please discuss here. Regarding "site leadership", I'm not sure who this is referring to. YOU and every other volunteer is the site's leadership. CorporateM (Talk) 16:48, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
I have a question. Is there anything in particular that needs to be said either in a sexual harassment policy or in the harassment policy in general about sexual harassment? Robert McClenon (talk) 17:42, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
It isn't up to the ArbCom whether we should have a sexual harassment policy. ArbCom doesn't make policy. It applies it. If the community wants a policy, it should make one. A Request for Comments is the way to do that. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:42, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
In a workplace, sexual harassment has two forms, which are quite different. The first, which is very clear and very serious, is attempting to obtain sexual favors in the workplace, and is unique to sexual harassment. The second, which is more complex and comes in shades of gray, is creating a hostile environment, based on a "reasonable woman" test. It isn't unique to sexual harassment, because an environment can be hostile to any of various types of employees, such as based on race or nationality, or on occupation within the workplace. Presumably the issue is the second type, which is why I am asking what should be specifically said about sexual harassment. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:42, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
tI could be a slippery slope. There are shades of grey so it's hard to have a one size fits all policy. What if the policy said "No sexual harassment is allowed. Right now it says no harassment is allowed, period. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Harassment That should cover sexual harassment. How to define sexual harassment exactly? It depends on context. Wikipedia doesn't really have strict rules, just guidelines, to encourage people to discuss and come to a compromise. Popish Plot (talk) 17:53, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
I think very similar arguments are raised anytime a change is suggested to any policy, guideline or essay. Our approach to handling complex and nuanced topics should be common sense and refinement over time, as oppose to inaction caused by the fear that we won't get it right. The current policy has sections devoted to stalking, legal threats and other issues, but nothing that is redundant with sexual harassment. CorporateM (Talk) 18:01, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
It could be that similar arguments are raised each time because it's always a valid and accurate argument for keeping the harassment policy as is. It has nothing that is redundant with sexual harassment? Not sure if that is true. Popish Plot (talk) 18:24, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
I am unwilling to start this discussion in the Request for Comments section or the Wikipedia_talk:Harassment page, because I do not want to be harassed myself. I would like to request some of the respected male editors on this site to start the discussion, on behalf of myself and all the other women who are being intimidated here, at the Request for Comments section, and to advocate for respectful treatment of women. I do not think this is not too much to ask. --Djembayz (talk) 18:05, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
At least one male editor has asked above exactly what needs to be said in a sexual harassment policy that goes beyond the harassment policy. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:19, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
I will comment that the lengthy discussion about whether a particular sexual insult (c**t) was really a sexual insult was disingenuous. In the times when the word has been used, it stretches the assumption of good faith to claim that it was not meant to be offensive. We certainly don't need a sexual harassment policy to deal with that word, when we have a harassment policy and a civility policy. So what should be added to a harassment policy or a sexual harassment policy about sexual harassment? Robert McClenon (talk) 18:19, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
In that kind of case, someone using the c**t word, common sense should have prevailed, that it is obviously sexual harassment, no need for context. But apparently common sense did not prevail? Ok maybe we do need a list of banned words? Some sort of rule someone can point to so as to not have to waste time explaining to someone why the c word is sexual harassment, you'll never convince someone of that if they are not arguing in good faith and just want to harass women to get them to go away. You'd think that if someone really read https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Harassment they would come away from it realizing calling people vulgar names is not ok. I bring up common sense but I should realize that some people pretend they don't have common sense just so they can troll. Popish Plot (talk) 18:28, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
See, it's exactly that I have a problem with. It's more the divide in values and difference between the US and the UK. The c word or twat or whatever in the UK are very rarely intended in a sexually provocative way, they're generally used for a contemptible, obnoxious idiot. Calling somebody the c word isn't pleasant, but it's almost as unlikely to be used for sexual harassment as "dick" is for harassing a male sexually. I know of nobody on here who fits the bill as somebody blatantly "sexually" harassing others.♦ Dr. Blofeld 06:08, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
I agree on having a list of banned words should not be needed because I think it may be needed so people can't play dumb. So the c word is used as a joke in Britain? Ok. Say an british wikipedian uses it by mistake as a joke to describe an American female Wikipedia editor. That is offensive. Explain to them calmly why and if they keep doing it after, the playing dumb defense should nopt be applicable. Popish Plot (talk) 13:47, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
The real problem, in my opinion, was not the word, as much as that the particular editor who used it is polarizing. Common sense did not prevail because that editor's defenders used a non-common-sense argument. The idea of a list of banned words has been proposed and rejected. I argued against it because it would permit editors who wished to be deliberately offensive to misspell words on the list and then claim that the word was not on the list of banned words. Anyway, now there is an RFC to add a sexual harassment section to the harassment policy. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:55, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
Gosh, I don't know if there is a solution then, if people would really play dumb and misspell bad words on purpose and then act innocent? Yeah that's real professional. Popish Plot (talk) 20:09, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
really, though, in that case the sexual connotation by itself is not material. Our policies and guidelines are that editors are, in essence, "in polite company." In polite company such words are not used casually to describe others. Saying that the words means "jerk" or "idiot" makes it worse, not better, as it's clear it's being applied to an editor. The defense that they were being offensive but not sexually offensive. What kind of defense would this be: "Yes, your honor I shot and killed her. But I used a .38 caliber bullet, not the .44 magnum. It would be wrong to kill her with the .44 magnum." If we're not going to enforce the civility policy in general, making it more specific so people start arguing about whether it was sexually incivil vs. just incivil isn't going to lead to more civility, it will just degrade the argument just as the above c-word argument has devolved and comparing it to run-of-the-mill insults makes it somehow more acceptable. Do we really want to excuse all incivility except sexual incivility so the argument always devolves into whether it it was sexual or not? That's where a separate policy is pushing us. --DHeyward (talk) 00:23, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
There's an example of non-sexist, almost certainly UK, use of the c- word in a recent bit of vandalism here: the lead sentence of Newcastle dab page modified to read ""Newcastle" stands for the shittest team going and biggest c***s going" (no asterisks used). I assume it's Newcastle United F.C. that the vandal had in mind. PamD 20:12, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
Okay, since folks keep claiming it's not a sexist term in the UK, let's use England's most notable, reliable, and respected dictionary: the OED. The first two definitions are about genitals ("The female genitals; the vulva or vagina.") and woman ("A woman as a source of sexual gratification; a promiscuous woman; a slut. Also as a general term of abuse for a woman." and "Sexual intercourse with a woman or women; women as a source of sexual gratification."). The third definition (much later in origin) is "As a term of abuse for a man." All compounds listed relate to genitals or women. The OED also notes "cunt remains the English word most avoided as taboo" and "it is now normally considered the strongest swear word in English". Even if it's being used toward men, it's still a strong swear word. Given that its history of usage was only for women and later applied to men, I would seem that the insult was intended to emasculate men. So I don't buy the argument that it's magically not offensive or not sexist in the UK. OED accessed online through university's library. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 21:05, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
If anyone wants to see some typical uses of the word in British English, to assess the difference between American and British usage, I would suggest reading The Cuckoo's Calling by Robert Galbraith (i.e. J.K. Rowling). À propos book recommendations and Americans in England: if you haven't already read them, @Jimbo Wales:, you might enjoy Watching the English by Kate Fox and Over Here by Raymond Seitz. --Boson (talk) 23:28, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
None of us are saying it isn't offensive to call somebody a cunt, it is offensive, whoever it is directed at. It is rarely used towards a woman though, and is almost always directed by a male towards a contemptible male without absolutely any female sexual connotation, much like "dick" is not meant sexually when you call somebody it. In the UK, yes, a lot of women dislike the word, I know a few women who'd be disgusted to hear it being spoken, but I think most would know that it isn't at all intended as a sexist remark. It's used as an insult for a male at least 95% of the time. I've never heard it used as a term for a promiscuous female, "slut", "slapper", "whore" are common terms, not cunt. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:34, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
It appears the the British are not unaware of its meaning --It's "very offensive" -- well, why so? It is also a woman's sexual organ, and people don't like being called a part of a woman? -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:08, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

The simple answer is that the Geek Social Fallacies are baked into psyche of the Wikimedia community. The GSFs and sexual harassment policies don't tend to work well together. Sceptre (talk) 18:04, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia does have a specific policy against sexual harassment -- however, it is buried in the morass of bad organization and meaningless blather that is WP:Civility. I proposed a rewrite at WT:Civility/sandbox some time ago, but nobody provided feedback on it. Really, I think we need to rewrite WP:Civility, merge in WP:Harassment, and once we have a single policy that is actually clear and terse enough for people to read, we can make a few carefully chosen statements in it about any special measures we want to take to improve the situation with sexual harassment. Wnt (talk) 23:53, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

WP:Civility and WP:NPA definitely need a rewrite. I don't know if they should be merged, but they need to be conceived as a unit, with different aspects. The civility component can then concentrate on being positively welcoming and avoiding things that turn away those who have a valuable contribution to make (be nice); NPA can concentrate on actual personal attacks and insults (don't be abusive) and the harassment component can concentrate on the more serious problem of persistent abuse and hate speech targeting individuals. Guidelines about not addressing other editors in the second person (for instance) serve no useful purpose at WP:NPA and just muddy the waters. I often think the people discussing these matters elewhere cannot have read the policy pages in question. --Boson (talk) 21:32, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
"Simplify and add more lightness" - please do take a machete to it. Guy (Help!) 09:10, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Request for comment

Per @Djembayz:'s request, I have started an RFC here about identifying sexual harassment as a type of harassment in WP:HARASSMENT. Sexual harassment policies are quite ubiquitous in any workplace environment or online community and widely believed to be effective at reducing the number of incidences of actual harassment.

Djembayz expressed reservations about commenting, but I would encourage the opposite. We should hope to achieve a good number of female editors participating in the discussion, despite their demographical minority in the community. CorporateM (Talk) 19:27, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

There's already discussion on VPP about this. Move it there. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 20:48, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
I wouldn't compare workplace sexual harassment policies with anything we want here. Corporate sexual harassment policies exist as a response to laws and lawsuits. Their primary purpose is to protect the corporation from criminal and civil liability. As a side effect, it may protect employees but that's not their goal just as HR and Corporate legal counsel don't exist to represent the interests other than the corporation. Actions that can get victims fired are things like recording the harasser, retaining or having legal counsel present during interviews, refusing to cooperate in investigations, discussing the case outside of management or HR, etc, etc. Corporations respond to complaints but in a way that limits their exposure to lawsuits by any party. Wikipedia is also not in a position to do what the fundamental core of all corporate sexual harassment policies have at their core: training and signed statements that employees have been trained and are aware of reporting policies as well as the behavior polices. "Seek outside counsel" or "contact law enforcement" is not in any corporate training I have ever seen. --DHeyward (talk) 00:46, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
The reason they are relevant is because it shows that sexual harassment policies are a de-facto standard of any code of conduct. Wikipedia probably has one of the most comprehensive codes of conduct in existence across its many behavioral policies, but we have a glaring omission. Also, if these policies "work" - meaning they reduce sexual harassment in the workplace - they will most likely work here to, and that's all that really matters. But of course our policy would be a bit different than a corporate one for the reasons outlined above. CorporateM (Talk) 16:37, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

The WMF and Harassment, in and beyond Lightbreather

As you know, WP:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Lightbreather is about to be completed. This isn’t really about the arbitration decision, so much as about what the WMF needs to do next with regard to off-wiki harassment. I am not trying to re-argue the ArbCom decision. An argument can be made that the ArbCom is justified in banning Lightbreather, or that the ban is an overreaction and the lesser remedies would have sufficed. (My own thought is that the ban was justified due to her own conduct. Some arbitrators agree and some do not.) The underlying problem that is beyond the remit of ArbCom, but within the scope of responsibilities of the WMF, is what to do about off-wiki harassment, in particular by what appears to be a toxic subculture of editors who will stop at nothing to enforce their will on Wikipedia. We have seen this sort of behavior to a lesser extent in GamerGate, and we have seen it in a greater extent in Lightbreather. My opinion is that the WMF has not done enough. Off-wiki harassment of Wikipedia editors is an existential threat to the neutrality of Wikipedia, just as is undisclosed commercial paid editing. However, undisclosed commercial paid editing is only a threat to the neutrality of Wikipedia. It is not a threat to the editors of Wikipedia. Off-wiki harassment is a threat both to the neutrality of Wikipedia and the editors of Wikipedia. The failure is that of the WMF, not that of ArbCom.

Maybe the WMF has been working behind the scenes with regard to off-wiki harassment, but has been maintaining a low profile, seeking to stay behind the scenes. If so, that isn’t enough. The WMF should not only be working behind the scenes. Since off-wiki harassment is both a threat to Wikipedia and a threat to its editors, and since only the WMF can address the threat, the WMF needs to be seen as actively protecting its editors. The WMF needs to establish that it will act with force, indeed, with ferocity, against harassment. This isn’t a matter of establishing a friendly environment. This is a matter of ensuring that the laws of the land fully protect the editors of Wikipedia.

There is discussion in the case about the need for a court order. I don’t know the details, but it appears that Lightbreather didn’t get the full support of the WMF in fighting the harassment. Maybe she did get the support that was required. If so, she isn’t seen as having gotten the support that was required, and sometimes the appearance of justice is even more important than actual justice.

Several respected female editors are not satisfied with the handling of the case. The inability of the ArbCom to deal with the problem is not the ArbCom’s failing. It appears to be the WMF’s failure. If the failure was that of law enforcement, maybe the WMF needs to explain that. When there is known off-wiki harassment, the WMF should not be maintaining a low profile, which just amounts to putting the head in the sand. (Some male editors think that the WMF’s efforts to maintain a “friendly place” are politically correct tokenism. Maybe, in trying to keep WMF servers free of profanity, the WMF is looking at a lesser danger rather than a greater danger, profanity rather than threats.)

Some editors have noted that the policy against doxxing makes it difficult for editors who are actively being harassed to fight back. The WMF should at least look into how to weigh that policy against the policy against harassment. (If the WMF itself would take the leadership in fighting harassment, there might be less reason for harassed editors to attempt to expose their harassers.)

The prominence that Wikipedia has achieved as a compendium of knowledge makes it vulnerable to efforts to bias its neutrality, and it is occasionally attacked by small groups who will stop at nothing to slant it, and will go so far as to engage in threats. The WMF has taken a responsibility on itself to protect Wikipedia and its editors. This effort needs to be public, not just behind the scenes.

Maybe the WMF really is addressing the problem of harassment. If so, it needs to be seen as addressing the problem of harassment. It needs to be seen as willing to act with force, and even with ferocity, to prevent harassment and threats.

Robert McClenon (talk) 17:49, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sufficiently familiar with all the details of this particular case to be able to offer a very insightful opinion about it. Rather than rehash it all here (likely to be painful and messy) it might be good to email me some information, including where I can learn more.
The first thing I'd ask you and others to read is this. It sounds like you are arguing for a broadening of this program, and that's something I would personally support if I am convinced that it would be helpful.
But another thing to remember is that in many many cases of off-wiki harassment (again, I am not speaking of the particular case above, as I know too little to have any real judgment about it), there simply are no legal remedies. If someone isn't breaking the law, or if they are breaking the law but hiding behind Tor or similar means of remaining hidden, then there really isn't anything that the Wikimedia Foundation can do. That's super frustrating but it is true.
Another thing to remember is that in many cases of online conflict, the lines get so blurred by blows and counterblows of online fury that it becomes very difficult to single out one side as "good". One thing I always recommend to people who are being harassed or treated badly is "leave a clean paper trail" - what I mean by that is that if someone is being obnoxious to you, and you're obnoxious back, and then move forward to avail yourself of conflict resolution processes, it makes it much harder for newcomers to piece together who is in the right and who is in the wrong.
I'm very welcoming of specific ideas and proposals for what the WMF can do - and examples can be valuable for that. Again, I don't think hashing through the details of this particular case again in public is a good idea, but I'd love to hear your analysis privately of at what point you think the WMF could and should have acted, and what they should have done.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 20:20, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
Just in regards to Jimbo's comments about there being 'no legal remedies', if someone is not breaking the law, then is it harassment? Criticism is no excuse to harass. However I have seen more than a few instances where subjects of legitimate criticism have tried to cry foul. Vordrak (talk) 14:11, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
With regard to the Legal Fees Assistance Program, as it is stated, it should be implemented, but needs expansion in one obvious specific area. That is to editors who have no special status, but who are personally sued on account of their editing. There is at least one article subject who within the past year did threaten to sue not only the WMF but individual editors on account of edits that he said were defamatory. That was clearly intended only to have an even graver chilling effect than the usual legal threat, especially since Wikipedia already has its own method for dealing with any actually defamatory edit, which is to suppress the edit and block the editor. The Legal Fees Assistance Program should, at the least, be expanded to non-privileged editors who are threatened with legal action. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:49, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
I had not initially been suggesting that the WMF should pay the legal fees of editors who were harassed, but that is reasonable. I had initially been suggesting that the WMF should use its own legal resources, as the WMF, to obtain appropriate relief against harassment, such as by injunctions. I still think that is also occasionally in order. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:49, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
While the two incidents of off-wiki harassment of Lightbreather that I am familiar with were entirely despicable, I do not perceive that either would give rise to a legal remedy, at least under U.S. law. In the United States, much online speech that all of us would deplore, and which would disqualify an identified perpetrator of it from the Wikipedia community, is nonetheless likely to be held entitled to First Amendment protection.
Note, for example, how New York's "aggravated harassment" statute was declared unconstitutional last year on vagueness and overbreadth grounds—a serious problem in the era of online stalking, harassment, and threats going far beyond the Wikipedia context. Compare the type of Facebook postings that were at issue in Elonis v. United States, decided by the U.S. Supreme Court a few weeks ago. (As a disgression, I believe page 4 of the Court's opinion is the first time Wikipedia was ever mentioned in a U.S. Supreme Court opinion. This is hardly the way we wanted to make our debut.)
I am familiar with other cases of on- and off-wiki harassment of editors in which I believe some remedy could be available. The specific cases should not be discussed on-wiki, but if there is interest in reevaluating the WMF's approach to this area, I would be glad to be part of the discussion. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:34, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
Jimbo, wouldn't cases like JarlaxleArtemis have some legal remedy? This person has been sending death threats, threats of physical violence, and constant torment of various users for years. Users that have turned to the WMF for aid to no avail. Supposedly he's US based and the WMF knows exactly who he is. Aren't death threats legally actionable pretty much anywhere in the US? I bring it because the general gist of the discussion is that such harassment can't be combated without WMF intervention but another user explained how that would be useless as they have turned to the WMF to deal with the JarlaxleArtemis abuse and they were unable to help. Capeo (talk) 16:02, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
I think that's a very good question, and I confess that I don't personally know at this moment the details of the WMF legal department's view on this particular case. I'm here at the board meeting with Geoff, and so in a spare minute, if I get a chance, I'll ask him about it. If the reason is specific to this case, I may not be able to speak specifically about it, depending on what the situation is, but I'll tell you what I can. And if the reason is due to a policy or philosophy of when the WMF should help, then I'm happy to help lead a community request to the board that we expand our efforts to cover such cases. But, again, I don't know enough about the current thinking on this case at the moment.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 18:51, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
As it happens Philippe just responded at the case page. It seems JarlaxleArtemis is a point of focus for his team. He obviously couldn't speak about any specifics as far as legal matters but policy and legal avenues are being investigated. One rather telling thing he mentioned though is the technological limitations of the blocking tools which appear to be archaic and ineffectual and easily subverted. Maybe it's time to look into updating these tools. Effective blocking would be a first line defense against on-wiki harassment at least. Capeo (talk) 19:02, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
Victim compensation funds or whatever this becomes should be separate from WMF and Wikipedia. Possibly even a consortium of like minded communities interested in preventing the same problem. To paraphrase, "Wikipedia is free as in free information, it's not free as in free beer." Set it up differently and cooperate but don't turn WP or WMF into the Internet Police. That will invariably have conflict at fringes that WP does not want to be in. The Elonis case for example that Newyorkbrad mentioned was clear cut harrassment. Conviction was reversed on technical question of strict liability and a jury instructions for criminal cases. The conviction was overturned, not on protected free speech vs. threats to harm, but on instructions given to the jury. Only Justice Thomas voted to uphold the conviction and all three female justices agreed to overturn the conviction (which is the giant clue that it wasn't the harassment they were deciding but rahter a principle of law regarding the rights of the accused - cotes were strictly along protection of the accused rather than free speech rights and threats). It would be horrific to have WP "lose" a high profile case like that where WP's interestes weren't even at issue. It's bad enough that Etonis used Wikipedia for legal advice (and prevailed though not on those grounds). It would be worse to lose such an obvious example of harassment on a technical jury instruction. It would be much better for a consortium including WP (Facebook should be ponying up some money there as it was their platform through which the harasser accessed his victims) supporting the victim through services including lost wages necessary to fight harassment. How would WP neutrally cover a subject like Bill Cosby if WP is directly involved in financing aspects of such cases? Jimbo should hit up Zuckerberg and others like Twitter to start an industry consortium that has the goal of ending harassment on their fora. It's not as broad as "all online harassment" but the harassment related to internet communities. Law enforcement doesn't distinguish death threats on the internet by, say Ross Ulbricht, and death threats made on facebook by an random IP but they do prioritize. A consortium will be needed to police fora from within if the low level stuff will get any traction. The mexican drug lord escapee tweeted a number of death threats and the police prioritize that over gamergate threats. A consortium need not focus on the high profile ones being dealt with by LE, but vigorously quashing the low level stuff is very doable with resolve. --DHeyward (talk) 04:24, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
Elonis didn't, at least not as far as the majority opinion discusses it. He merely linked to Freedom of Speech from a Facebook page.
The opinion was solely predicated on the principle that intent is assumed to be part of [the definition of] every criminal act.
Elonis argued that the court of the first instance, and indeed the appeal court had not alleged intent, let alone proved it. The supreme court supported his argument.
The case was not about "harassment" but about threats. To assume that female justices would have automatically found against Elonis, where male justices would not seems specious to say the least.
All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 01:23, 20 July 2015 (UTC).
01:23, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
It's not clear to me why (in principle) ArbCom could not deal with such an issue. If you are harassed by some other editor outside of Wikipedia, then I don't see why you could not contact ArbCom via email and provide all the evidence you have, including the evidence about the identity of the editor. That would not be doxing, as you are not publicly disclosing any private information. Count Iblis (talk) 23:11, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
Why waste the bandwidth when an Office Action ban is just fine? ArbCom really isn't equipped for it. Nor do I trust them to act in the interest of WMF either legally or otherwise. That's not their purpose. It's a short note: "You are no longer welcome on any WMF servers. Your known accounts have been blocked by office action and may not be unblocked. Attempts to breach the ban will be dealt with to the extent allowed by law. Sincerely, WMF Office Legal Department." It's WMF that has to decide what side they choose to be on when it comes to protection. This includes harassment, child pornography, and legal threats. I don't think there is much Office Action hesitation when someone makes a physical threat of violence either to themselves or others, nor do I think the WMF office is much conflicted about how to handle contributors that threaten legal action against WMF or editors that express support of child pornography. There should be that same clarity of purpose when dealing with harassment. It's great that ArbCom banned "Two Kinds of Pork" but why wasn't it also followed with an office action ban? Anybody that jeopardizes the project in way that is so far beyond the bounds of a "disagreement" needs more than ArbCom which only exists to serve the community. The hand wringing should be replaced with clear Office Action that basically takes ArbCom out of the equation as final arbiter in these cases. In fact, relieving them of that burden would clarify their purpose immensely and we wouldn't have to conflate editor condiuct with victimization. Let ArbCom deal with serial 3RR abusers and good faith disputes that don't revolve around the legal fringes. Even the Schapps issue should have been dealt with by WMF Office Action in addition to whatever ArbCom did - including an Office Action block of contribsx. Hopefully it was and it is just private. --DHeyward (talk) 04:24, 17 July 2015 (UTC)


Just my thought but I don't think we should bring up lightbreather. She is going to be site banned so there would be no way for her to defend herself, time to move on. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:19, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
As the OP makes clear, the focus of this discussion is meant to be the broader issue of off-wiki harassment rather than the specifics of Lightbreather's actions and the appropriate response to them. Your comment is off-base. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:47, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
I am commenting on the general intent of the OP of the broader issue on not any individual cases, if anyone admin feels this is somehow not ok please remove. I think that there is obviously a need to put into place certain processes to protect users. Privacy is a concern but so is doxxing, and other legitimate issues of harassment. When it is done through on wiki I think that it is easier to track but the problem with supplying user details to another user for the intent of investigation can be easily abused. A problem in any industry dealing with private or sensitive information is involved will tell you the dangers of individuals that use social engineering to get that info to use for harassment or other bad purposes. We have seen abuses in these checkuser processes including one recently that involved a private arbcom case resulting in a desysoping. I agree a response is needed by WMF but I urge caution in thinking how the information can help and hurt. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 02:01, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Robert McClenon is 100% correct here and I fully agree WMF needs to do something (or something more) to deal with harassment. But it's important to note that much of this was sexual harassment. In general, identity-based harassment is not tolerated by the community, with the exception of gender. If someone uses the n-word, action is often swift and decisive. But we've had entire ANIs and AEs about whether it's okay to call people "cunts" or "twats". Editors at the receiving end of this are told to suck it up, to grow thicker skins. Having WMF address harassment is lovely (and it would be nice if they give special attention to identity-based harassment), but there needs to be something to address the leniency regarding sexual harassment by the community and admins. We need a shift in how the project deals with it. I don't know how this can be done, but at the very least having influential people call for action on this would be a start. I've tossed out some ideas on LB's case's PD talk page if anyone cares to see them. TL;DR - Wikipedia has a cultural problem that must be addressed. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 04:30, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

As you must know well, the "entire ANIs and AEs" involved extensive discussion on how those words were used and different perspectives on what those words meant in different cultural settings: American usage/meaning, in particular, differing from other English-speaking countries, and differences also within those other countries. On the other hand, I'm not aware of any such diffences on the n-word in the English-speaking world nowadays. What undermines those voicing concerns about the gender issues on WP is that kind of casual overstatement ("identity-based harassment is not tolerated by the community, with the exception of gender"). DeCausa (talk) 04:55, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
Yes, overstatements are the problem. Like your misquote of me. I said in general. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 05:27, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
"Generally, identity-based harassment is not tolerated by the community, with the exception of gender". There it is, in all its glory. How does that make the slightest difference to the point I was making? DeCausa (talk) 06:54, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
You accuse someone of overstatement by misquoting them to make their statement into an overstatement, and you fail to see why that makes a difference? The point you were making was blatantly false to the point of ridiculousness. As an American living in London, I can reassure any Americans who have bought into this nonsense that calling a woman in a serious situation a "cunt" is not a personal attack is an absolutely ridiculous thing to say. It is certainly true that "cunt" is considered a much more seriously "bad" word in the US. The UK meaning is much more like "bitch". If you call a woman a "bitch" in a conversation at Wikipedia, that's a personal attack and deserving of an immediate block for a meaningful amount of time. Repeat offenses are deserving of a permanent ban. The other thing you said, that the "n-word" doesn't have the same kind of different usages in different communities is also obviously false. The whole argument is, as a whole, completely nonsense from top to bottom.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 18:43, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
If you think the c-word in the UK generally means something "more like bitch", you live in your own bubble. How long have you lived in the UK? What's truly ridiculous is you can live in this country for that amount of time and both be so off track and yet have such confidence in your misunderstanding of our language. There are, indeed, cultural circumstances in the UK where using the c-word is considered denigrating to women. It's not uniform and varies geographically, by class, and by political afiliation. But one thing it rarely means is "bitch" in any of those situations - although there are undoubtedly some occassions were it could. As for the so-called "misquote", the point is the absurd and ridiculous "with the exception of gender". It matters not a jot whether the sentence began with "generally". DeCausa (talk) 19:36, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
You are wrong, and to such an extent that it is not really possible to interpret what you are saying as anything other than trolling. On your user page, you claim to be a lawyer. I want you to tell me, with a straight face, that if in a serious meeting with partners of your law firm, in a disagreement with a female partner you called her a "cunt" this would be perfectly acceptable behavior and not considered sexist at all. No? Then get lost and stop trying to muddy the waters with abject nonsense.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 03:27, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
"Get lost"! Of course it would not be said in the scenario you mentioned. The c-word is the most offensive four letter word in the UK. (One of the errors in your original reply to me was that you think it is a more seriously "bad" word in the US) But your scenario displays a surprising lack of knowledge of usage in the UK. It is rarely applied to women: for the most part, it is a descriptive of a man, and generally implies that he is cruel/vicious/generally evil or stupid/foolish or is used as a vacuous term having no particular personality implication (on a par with geezer although with a considerably stronger word). I believe the Australians tend to use it in the last sense. The point is women are not generally called the c-word. This is where your confusion with "bitch" arises. A man might be called a "cunt" but (probably) the closest insult to a woman (albeit using a milder word) is "bitch". There are exceptions to this. In certain geographical/class circumstances a woman might be called the word, but that is carrying over the meaning as it more generally applies to men. Taking the UK as a whole, this is very definitely a relatively minor fringe usage. However, in the UK, there are undoubtedly many people who would consider that using the word is offensive or denigrating specifically to women. But it's not because it's directed at women in the way you seem to think (or as it is in the US). I'm sorry to have to do a tldr explanation but your rudeness to me and your surprising lack of understanding of the word in the UK seems to call for it. (Btw, you might be assisted by reading our own article on the word). DeCausa (talk) 07:03, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
Exactly. You've misunderstood the UK usage etc, Jimbo, sorry. - Sitush (talk) 09:44, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
To call a woman a cunt is grossly offensive, I believe Sinead o'Connor recently called Kim Kardashian it. It's a sort of societal taboo, you just don't do it. Is it because of its sexual connotation? Maybe. It isn't a pleasant word, and is offensive, whoever it is directed at, but Jimbo you're really wrong in thinking that calling a male a "cunt" or "twat" is intended to be offensive to women. Where I live in southern Wales it's fairly common, in fact I've often heard it between friends to express their good fortune like "I won a grand on the lottery last night". Friend says "Lucky cunt". And intentionally being offensive to women sexually is the last thing which is intended in saying it. Like it would be calling a male a dick, it has no sexual meaning when used in that context, they both mean "a contemptible obnoxious idiot" basically. I agree that such words shouldn't be uttered at each other on here though, and I do think Jimbo has a point at least that a lot of women dislike the word. But to call a female a cunt really is ten times worse than "bitch", they're not comparable in the UK at all really, bitch is very common when directed at a woman, and some men would say it to his wife/girlfriend if she is being annoying, but "cunt" is rarely used towards a female and reserved for moments of extreme anger, intending to be grossly offensive. 95% of the time it is directed at a male, and basically means "you utter tool" without any thought of what it technically means sexually. The problem with calling somebody it on the web is that you never know the true gender identity of who it is directed at, and obviously in a professional working environment it is not something to be said.♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:09, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
Dr. Blofeld's explanation of the usage of the word is commensurate with my experience of it. It can be used in friendly banter between friends (I've only heard it used by males to males). Other than that it is an objectionable insult, but in the UK it is not generally considered a misogynistic insult and is generally not used to demean women. It's only through reading related discussions here that I have come to learn that in the US the term is (I think) akin to something like dismissing a woman as being "only a vagina" - and that is truly horrible, but it is not the way I've ever heard the word used in the UK. And it certainly does not mean "bitch" - Jimbo is truly wrong on that (I do appreciate your attempts to explain, Jimbo, but even with your time spent in the UK you are still speaking as an American to Americans). "Bitch" certainly is sexist in nature in that it is almost exclusively directed towards women (and I've actually mostly heard it used by women, although I've heard gay male friends use it amongst themselves). But "cunt" is not used the same way. The obvious answer is to never call anyone a cunt here on Wikipedia (or imply they might be a cunt, or advise them on how not to be a cunt, etc), as the word is undeniably offensive in a public context (in two different ways in two different cultures, but nonetheless offensive). What we should not be doing is assuming that person from culture A means the same thing as person from culture B when they both use the same word. Mr Potto (talk) 11:41, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
@Djembayz: - I think your "hatnote" here is a step in the wrong direction. You may be frustrated with this discussion for one reason or another, and perhaps it is a sidetrack of a sidetrack, but gratuitously bringing the editors' sex into it is exactly what we need to avoid doing in order to reduce the risk of sexual discrimination on Wikipedia. I think you ought to strike that part of your comment in the interests of moving forward productively. Wnt (talk) 15:33, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
  • I happen to know that Jimmy feels passionately about protecting Wikipedians - especially female Wikipedians - from harassment and cyberstalking. I know this because some years ago there was a long discussion of the issue, and I was part of that discussion. Ironically, many of the same people making a massive fuss about Lightbreather also pretended that this necessarily private discussion was The End Of The World As We Know It. It's almost as if some people just want excuses to bash Wikipedia, and Jimmy specifically. Guy (Help!) 11:56, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
Just having a discussion about something doesn't mean feeling passionately about it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Popish Plot (talk • contribs) 17:38, 16 July 2015 (UTC) Popish Plot (talk) 17:38, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
He didn't say that, obviously. I don't see how you could possibly imagine he meant that. His point is that he knows I'm passionate about the issue because he's known me for years and has witnessed me in both private and public conversation, where my passion for this issue is evident.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 18:45, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
He did say that but I guess he was joking around, the problem is that this is no joking matter. Popish Plot (talk) 20:11, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
I most emphatically was not joking. My point was wholly serious: when Jimmy talks about sexual harassment, intimidation and the like, it is because, as far as I can tell from my interactions with him, he cares deeply about those things. Human dignity actually matters to him. It does to me, too: I wrote the standard advice to BLP subjects at OTRS. The majority of such discussions on Wikipedia right now, though, are not about those things at all, but about trying to crowbar one side or the other of some long-festering dispute (usually gamergate) into every issue. There is a world of difference between the faux-politesse of civil POV-pushers, and genuine respect for fellow human beings. Any Wikipedia who does not see this, and who is not up for reassessing their own behaviour and apologising when they get it wrong, is part of the problem. We all make mistakes. Wikipedia does not mandate perfection. It does mandate at least some humility. That's the tough bit, especially for those of us who are, in our real-world lives, strong personalities and accustomed to taking a leadership role within our own field. People here may not have English as a first language, they may be an emotional mess, they may be a psychological basket case. When we have to eject them, we should do it with class and let them retain their dignity, at least if they are not obvious trolls or vandals. Guy (Help!) 13:04, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
I was hoping you were joking because it really is a bit silly to say. The issue here is why isn't there a sexual harassment policy? Because you had a discussion once sop there is no need? That is literally what you said before, but thanks for clarifying. I do agree having perfection as a goal is setting up for failure, it isn't going to happen. And we should act with class and not make trollish comments. Popish Plot (talk) 13:40, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
Harassment is already covered by existing policies. All forms of harassment. Guy (Help!) 08:52, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
  • It seems to me that most of the current dilemma relates to the question of whether a site ban requires evidence of harassment "beyond a reasonable doubt" or whether a preponderance of evidence is sufficient. WMF Legal — if they spent time and money to go on the offensive — might be able to identify bad actors "beyond a reasonable doubt," whereas without subpoenas being put into play, greater uncertainty remains. Now, do we really want WMF Legal going on the offensive? One should be careful of what one wishes... Is that a good use of donor dollars? Perhaps, but where does one draw the line? It's not a totally simple thing, JW's observation about Tor and Brad's about lack of statutory relief notwithstanding. Carrite (talk) 15:17, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
    A site ban is not the same as taking someone's property or throwing them in jail. It would seem to me that WMF can ban someone from their website for whatever reason they see fit, without regard to standards required by civil or criminal law (preponderance of evidence, or evidence beyond a reasonable doubt). I'm not a lawyer, though, so others are free to correct me here. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 04:02, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
Well, ArbCom certainly had a problem with that concept. Carrite (talk) 17:15, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

If you don't insist on respect, you won't get it

Acting as your big sister, Mr. Wales, let me jump in and give you a hand, and hat that discussion above. I didn't hear that, were you talking to me? I live in a rough neighborhood, two shootings last week, and the way things work here is that you have to insist on respect. If you don't insist on respect, you won't get it.

An African American woman who spent years in public life shared the following technique: "I didn't hear you, were you talking to me? Because if you were, I didn't hear a thing you were saying." And if the person repeats themselves, ask, "Are you finished yet?" and walk away.

And when you can't get respect, your only option, if you want to be safe, is to leave. I'm not going to step forward and propose respect become a policy, even if Arbcom suggests I do it, as I don't want to be harassed. Arbcom is utterly unwilling and unable to enforce respect for women. I'd say it's up to you, the male editors, and the WMF to propose a policy of respect at this point, not me!

When women can't get respect, they walk away. And it's pretty clear that's the current situation on this website.

If you don't insist on respect, you won't get it. --Djembayz (talk) 12:47, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Excuse me but who has disrespected you? Hell in a Bucket (talk) 14:44, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
It's interesting. I've tried exactly that method. Some of my esteemed colleagues called it "lack of responsiveness". All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 22:22, 19 July 2015 (UTC).
I have also lived in "rough" areas where knowing how to not look like a victim, as well as how to use a bunch of keys, were considered useful skills but, whatever your African-American friend said, I would counsel against pointedly and publicly ignoring and turning your back on those you disagree with. It would probably be (rightly) seen as a lack of respect, and I have generally found that if you are straightforward, not gratuitously combative or threatening, and treat others with respect they will normally show respect in return, but demanding respect without showing it is usually counterproductive, at best. --Boson (talk) 22:39, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
Well, if you feel that women editors who disagree with the distasteful atmosphere and tone in user interactions are advised to leave quietly rather than making a fuss, and avoid remarks that might get them banned for battleground behavior, that's happened quite a bit on this website. And it appears the management here wants it that way. --Djembayz (talk) 12:47, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
As regards the first part of your comment (leaving quietly): no that is not what I meant—and not what I said. What I said and meant is that the need to show respect is reciprocal. But everybody needs to refrain from bullying.
As regards the second part of your comment (re battleground behaviour): yes, of course I believe that editors (all editors) should avoid remarks that are likely to get them banned for battleground behavior. And I see no reason to criticize management for disapproving of battleground behaviour.
A separate issue is whether those who insist on respect and civility should be held to a higher standard, but that is another discussion.--Boson (talk) 16:19, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Public and Private Proceedings

It occurs to me that, although I stand by my statement that not enough is done about coordinated harassment, part of the problem is a difference between ArbCom proceedings and WMF Office Actions. That is that ArbCom proceedings are (with the exception of a very few in camera ArbCom cases) very public, and WMF Office Actions are done off the record. The off-the-record nature of WMF Office Actions creates the appearance that justice is not being done. Sometimes the appearance that justice is not being done is as harmful as actual injustice. If ArbCom is able to hold its quasi-judicial proceedings in public, is there a good solid legal reason why WMF Office Actions have to be done off-the-record, which makes them essentially invisible? I realize that in a few cases, such as pedophilia, the nature of the offense is so horrible that it is best to say nothing. But in general, if ArbCom can act publicly, why is WMF required to act off-the-record and so appear not to be acting? Robert McClenon (talk) 18:26, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Not only that, their actions often appear capricious. It would be easy enough to, for instance, attempt a joint statement "By agreement with the WMF, User:Placeholder has had all privileges of editing WMF sites removed." If there is no agreement, the reason for the ban should be published. Either it is right and the editor will slink off with their tail between their legs, or it is wrong and will be challengeable. The WMF should not be banning people on shaky grounds, of course, so this should never happen. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 22:28, 19 July 2015 (UTC).

Science and Art together

Nothing to see here. Elvis has left the building – repeatedly. Favonian (talk) 16:53, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Hello Jimbo Wales! I want to ask your help. I already asked at another user, but he nothing knows on that issue. And he forbid me leave my topic on talk page of relevant article. By all these reasons, I ask you: Who was first to use this scientific algorithm (original: author or resource):

«The word “semantic” stands for “the meaning of”:

The Beatles were a popular band from Liverpool; Lennon was a member of the Beatles; "Hey Jude" was recorded by the Beatles»

You can ask question to Tim Berners-Lee even (if you do not know reply). Thank you!!! - Proni25892 (talk) 14:16, 18 July 2015 (UTC).

Going out the door now, but.... the stilted English, phrases used here, Russian punctuation, use of random brackets in prose and edit summaries, interest in the Beatles and appeals to Jimbo.... all very reminscent of blocked sockmaster User:Need1521 or parent sockmaster and community banned User:Crazy1980, (see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Need1521 or recent history of articles such as More popular than Jesus or Russian Orthodox Church.) I'll file another SPI when I get back. Valenciano (talk) 15:55, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Last night at Wikimania, there was a Beatles cover band at the reception at the art museum. I thought our repeatedly blocked friend may find that interesting.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 14:52, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Ha, I hope we don't end up with two articles on the same subject, but this is one case where deleting one shouldn't turn the other into a redirect. EllenCT (talk) 17:34, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Can Administrators get blocked

Good morning, Jimbo Wales. I've come here to ask a question.

  • Can a adminstrator block another administrator and can you block an administator

I just wanted to know, because I do not know the answer. Please leave your answer/reply here, Thanks if you answer.

Ayaz1989 (talk) 11:49, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

This is a good question. I would like to know a clean simple answer also. On another note, the asking editor has an edit history only a couple of days long and exhibits a fairly high level of editing sophistication which is a red flag for a SOCK. They are also wikilinking to user subpages which is rather odd. Nyth63 12:09, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
Yes, an administrator can block another administrator. Liz Read! Talk! 12:45, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
They can also block themselves. --Redrose64 (talk) 13:12, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
Very easily done. Black Kite (talk) 13:21, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
There is an ArbCom case currently in the workshop phase about an administrator who blocked another administrator and whether the block was improper. So, yes, an administrator can block another administrator, and it can be a controversial action. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:16, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
Are you referring to the case where Administrator 1 protected a page over a controversy, Administrator 2 edited said page (and made similar controversial edits) only like one minute later, and Administrator 1 blocked Administrator 2 for editing through that protection? If you don't know what case I'm referring to, my apologies, but I can't seem to find the case myself, but if it's the same one as you are referring to, you should know... If this is really just something completely unrelated, you won't know what I am talking about, and I will strike through this... Dustin (talk) 18:43, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
It's Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Kww and The Rambling Man, currently in the workshop phase. I won't discuss the case further here, but it does involve an administrator blocking an administrator. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:47, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
Just let Admin_{i} indefinitely block Admin_{i+1} for i = N-1 till 1 where N is the number of Admins and then Admin_1 (a.k.a. Jimbo) can implement a new system to manage Wikipedia :) Count Iblis (talk) 22:05, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
To answer the second part of your question, yes Jimbo can block an administrator if he wishes to do so. In fact he can block anyone and has done so in the past.--5 albert square (talk) 12:31, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
Jimbo's last block, we can read here: "In August 2009, the Committee found Wales to be in breach of the blocking policy in his block of Bishonen, and acknowledged his "permanent abdication of the use of the blocking tool"." Count Iblis (talk) 18:38, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
Actually Jimbo's last block was in 2010 on User:196.212.0.35, ironically (given the content of the arbcom motion) with no block notification posted on the IP's talk page. Brustopher (talk) 19:43, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
What about this edit in 2013? Nyth63 23:18, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
That's a page protection. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 01:07, 20 July 2015 (UTC).
The edit summary still uses the word block and it is an admin tool not available to most users. Nyth63 17:32, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jimbo_Wales/Archive_190&oldid=1179082475"