Jump to content

User talk:Jimbo Wales/Archive 120

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 115←Archive 118Archive 119Archive 120Archive 121Archive 122→Archive 125

Wikipedia article deleted without proper procedures

It has been established that proper procedure was followed after all, and there is a discussion at deletion review. Nothing for me to be involved with really. As a side note, deletion is clearly the right answer here for a variety of reasons.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 08:56, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

List of pedophiles [1] listing only 5 people thus far who had their own Wikipedia articles and were famous for being convicted of this, was deleted by an administrator without going to AFD. Those on the list are already in one category or another for Category:People convicted of child sexual abuse. The discussion about this was quickly closed as well. Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#List_of_pedophiles Can administrators just ignore the proper process of sending something to AFD, and just do as they wish now, silencing all opposition? Is it alright to put convicted child sex offenders into categories but not alright to have a list of all those in these categories? List provide far more information, and are more useful. If the article was probably named People convicted of child sexual abuse, and listing those already in that category, would there be a problem with it? Dream Focus 23:58, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

As long as the admins in question have sufficient inferred alien cachet value (positive), honorary yes.©Geni 00:01, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
WP:IAR. Coren's speedy deletion had massive support in that discussion. And you can add mine to it as well. If you want to pick a fight about it, WP:DRV is the venue you want. Resolute 00:06, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
Well you can cite IAR if you want, but you don't need to. Administrators have long been able to delete articles that are problematic with regard to WP:BLP purely at their own discretion (see the BLP policy and the badlydrawnjeff arbitration case); of course, it's expected that they will immediately seek review of their actions. Seems to be exactly what happened here. CIreland (talk) 00:15, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
See above. This was a massive BLP headache waiting to happen. I'd support that deletion as well. elektrikSHOOS (talk) 00:11, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
By only listing those already in the category, I see no problems at all. Anyway, I have in fact contacted the administrator on the talk page, as is required before starting a deletion review. Dream Focus 00:14, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
The very obvious issue that Coren identified in his deletion rationale at AN are not resolved by renaming the article. You will have to address that problem first. Resolute 00:21, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
His deletion rationale was "G10! Holy shit! This coatrack is a BLP nightmare even if it were perfectly maintained and consistent? It's UNDUE, and a libel magnet!)" A rename would've solved it, since we are not libel by listing only those who were convicted of a crime on the list. Dream Focus 00:35, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
The out-of-process closure was entirely appropriate. Under no circumstances should Wikipedia be facilitating libel, which is what such a list would inevitably do. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:17, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
Um, why wasn't the talk page DC links above deleted along with the article? Ooops - never mind - I'd misread the link... :( AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:30, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
Sorry, I should have been more clear - that's the talk page from a similar list deleted in 2003 for similar reasons. What was true then is true now. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 13:50, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Should WikiSource directly compete with subscription databanks by duplicating content?

Hi. I know that this section is probably more appropriate for WikiSource, but I didn't see you having a user talk page over there, and I'm still primarily active here, and my watchlist to date only includes wikipedia pages, and I thought some of the lurkers might be interested in chiming in as well, and I can always create more excuses if I have to.

I remember some time ago you made a statement to the effect that you did not want WF entities to be competitive with similar commercial entities. That is the proximate reason for this question.

I and a few others have been developing a set of articles about Bibliography of encyclopedias. I in particular have recently been adding those which appear in an older copy of the Guide to Reference Books which seem to me to fall within the area of public domain. I know that some of these are still considered among the best reference sources out there, such as the Hastings Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics, and think that for the volumes of that series in the public domain, and for several of the other works as well, it would be in the interests of all of us to have them available somewhere here. I also think that, if we had a broad enough base there, we could use some of the content of these public domain works to establish the first draft of those articles which might be counted as being "core", "essential," or "primary" topics to some broad field of knowledge, which still have for whatever reason, not had articles about them created here. The recent highly-regarded Encyclopedia of Religion by Lindsay Jones, which is generally seen as being a very good overview of the field of religion, still has a very large number of articles which we have no equivalent article for. I imagine the same holds true in other areas as well. Also, I think particularly for religion and other soft sciences involving history, these older sources provide a great indication of what the status of academic thought on certain historical topics was before more recent discoveries, for subjects like the Dead Sea Scrolls.

The problem arises with the possibility that this might put us in rather serious direct competition with some other entities, like JSTOR and ProQuest. I just recently took another look at ProQuest's Heritage Quest databank and, so far as I can see, just about all the public domain reference books I can think of are already hosted by them. And, yes, most of that particular databank seems to be such public domain works. Would you and the Foundation think we should perhaps actively try to add these sources to WikiSource or not? My hope would be "yes," but I think you all are much better informed on the legalities and possible complications of maybe being too directly competitive with other similar entities than I am. John Carter (talk) 17:34, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Hmmm, should we establish a system to register who owns various pieces of public domain/free licensed content, perhaps with some gray-legal enforcement mechanism? Should we agree to delete Commons holdings if some company sets them up on a server beside some ads? I think not. Wnt (talk) 18:51, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
I don't recall ever making any such statement, but perhaps I had a particular context in mind? For the types of works you are talking about, though, I think there's no question: such things are central to the purpose of Wikisource and should be hosted there without question.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 08:42, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Electoral Commission RfC Closure

Jimbo,

In accordance to the Electoral Commission proposal and your partial endorsement of the same, you are requested to close the advisory request for comment located at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Arbitration Committee Elections December 2012/Electoral Commission and appoint the members of the Electoral Commission. The Electoral Commission is comprised of 3 Commissioners and any remaining persons who are qualified to be "reserve members."

Summary of results:
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.


As of this letter, the results are roughly as follows: 8 Community members volunteered to be Commissioners, 3 of which - Floquenbeam, Sven Manguard, and Cyberpower678 - withdrew from consideration. Three volunteers received only endorsements on the Request for Comment: MBisanz with 33 endorsements, Happy-Melon with 18 endorsements, and Avraham with 13 endorsements. Volunteers Lord Roem with 17 endorsements, and KTC recieved 4 endorsements; one user, Jc37, opined in the comment sections on these two volunteers that he or she would "prefer members at least be entrusted with adminship responsibilities." Several of the endorsements involve differing opinions on the topic, and Jc37 has clarified that the comment in Lord Roem's endorsement section, as well as on the RfC's talk page.

In addition, on the talk page of the RfC, there was wide agreement that Electoral Commissioners should be allowed to vote, but should not make more partisan statements, including and especially voter guides. In addition, Risker raised the issue that having an experienced CheckUser on the commission would be an important asset.

The interpretation of the results and appointments are left to your discretion, and the summary above was provided as a courtesy. Please make your appointments at your earliest convenience. The nomination period is active and due to close on 11/20/2012

Sincerely, --Tznkai (talk) 04:06, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Summary is discourteous to the community. I had inferred that the expectation of the community was that Jimbo would read the discussion and make up his own mind. Providing a summary -- which has already been challenged on the corresponding talk page -- was not discussed in the AC election 2012 RFC and is inappropriate. NE Ent 15:36, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
I moved an "and" and modified punctuation slightly in the notice above. User:Tznkai should of course feel free to revert. - jc37 16:08, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
I've made some edits and corrections concerning Jc37's comments. Specifically, I have removed the implication that Jc37's comments were negative, and pointed out there was the issue was addressed by various endorsers. As to whether or not the summary is inappropriate, it is my understanding of the RfC process that any and all users may, if they choose, suggest how they believe the closing administrator should interpret the results. I've done my best to leave as neutral and value-free a summary as possible, pointing out to Jimbo what issues have been brought up, since I was left to understand he had not tracked the whole thing in real time. Furthermore, I have every confidence that Jimbo's mind is reasonably impervious to my influence.--Tznkai (talk) 19:08, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

This process is poorly defined and needs to change next year. It's not supposed to be an election, nor am I free to ignore it completely. The remit of the commission is poorly defined and in the event of a real crisis, the commission does not have sufficient community mandate to make a hard call without my support, but neither would I be free to ignore a poor recommendation from the commission. This is all pointless bureaucracy designed to solve a problem that doesn't exist, creating new confusions and problems and potential for controversy where there should be none.

I will proceed here by reading over the link above in great detail and asking ArbCom for their advice. As is my usual custom, I will try to make the decision that generates the least drama. But this is seriously broken.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 09:45, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Fair point, indeed. What would you suggest instead? That we have an election for commissioners prior to an election for ArbCom? Quis custodiet ipsos custodes comes to mind. Perhaps the foundation could appoint commissioners? I'm afraid that many members of the English Wikipedia project may view that as an intrusion (albeit we do exist as a project subject to their rules and regulations). Should ArbCom itself appoint the commissioners? That would certainly allow for potential claims of bias, even if the individuals were all above reproach. Is this a situation where you step in as Godking and appoint on your own? There will be many complaints about that too, I am afraid. There is no good answer, per se. I think having an election is the worst option, as that just underscores that famous quip "The bureaucracy is expanding to meet the needs of the expanding bureaucracy" but there does need to be someone or somewhere to go if there are any issues. -- Avi (talk) 16:54, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Hi Jimbo - much as I agree with you about the practicalities here, the reality is that we've had an informal electoral commission pretty much since the inception of Arbcom elections. Most of the time that's worked fairly well; someone's managed the pre-election RFC, a few others have built the pages and templates. However, with the SecurePoll process, there does need to be a few people who are trusted to work with the WMF staff to set up the poll, and to monitor for socking and so on, before turning things over to the volunteer stewards who assess and publish the results. Thus, it's necessary to have a few very trusted users (they have to ID to the WMF because of access to IP information of accounts) to handle that end. Now, I'm not a huge fan of this process, but it's the process the [interested] community came up with for this year. No doubt refinements can be made. Meanwhile, however, we're now in a situation where in the past the volunteer "electoral commission" would have already been very active, keeping things in check and running the election like clockwork. While the ball is in your court, this is something of a time-sensitive task. Risker (talk) 17:47, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
I agree with all of this. I'll close it in the allotted time, but I'm not thrilled with it. The process alleges to leave things at my discretion, while the overall vibe of it means that if I do anything other than the obvious I'll be beaten up. It's not the right way.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 19:58, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
Welcome to Sparta! This is the same sort of thing that plagues this place. The cause is just and the end result usually turns out for the best but the path is full of danger and drama and many an editor has been lost before they reach the end. If you are having concerns doing something you don't agree with, particularly with Arbcom, imagine how the rest of us feel who are completely powerless. Its a general atmosphere that needs to change. 108.28.162.125 (talk) 11:35, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
I may be wrong, but I think Jimbo's concern is more the rock vs. hardplace issue; and that most of the complaints will come from non-Arbcom participants in this project, not that ArbCom is being difficult. Of course, I could be wrong. -- Avi (talk) 16:00, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Plan trying 10x longer than working alone: I think the secret to success, with improving the environment, is to keep trying for 10x times longer than if working alone to solve a problem. I have noted, "Wikipedia is 10% information and 90% deformation" as a general rule of thumb to beware the larger difficulties. For example, when verifying prior edits to articles, the proportion of edits, in a mid-range article, is typically 90% hack edits+reverts, compared to about 10% of edits actually improving the article page. Changing a template might take about 1 hour to alter the markup & adequately test the changes, but perhaps add another 9 hours to explain to others why the changed template would be better. Anyway, if an activity alone would take about 3 weeks to accomplish, then plan about 30 weeks if other people must be involved to gain consensus. The more complex the task, then typically the longer it will take to explain/discuss with other users. The factor of 10x is just an approximation, but at least it indicates the level of effort needed, to overcome frustrations, and work toward long-term solutions. I think people who only try 5x times harder, than working alone, in many cases will often fail to achieve the better results. That is why it is important to re-examine problems, or re-suggest solutions, over and over and over, to help move the larger group to make progress. -Wikid77 (talk) 16:58, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Bold

It seems like the first paragraph of WP:Bold needs to be rewritten and reworded to be more in line with community standards. The first paragraph encourages users to make bold changes because that's not really how the community operates anymore. Bold changes frequently lead to blocks, bans, community bans and drama. I think it needs to be made clearer that editors need to edit with extreme care and that bold changes will likely result in the punishments listed above. The days of bold editing are quite a ways behind us at this point and this guideline needs to be updated to reflect that. 108.28.162.125 (talk) 12:15, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Bold. -- MST☆R (Chat Me!) 12:19, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
So be bold! - unless one runs afoul of the bold, revert, discuss cycle, being bold is fine (and commonly done). While it's true some people are too quick on the revert, most of the time being bold works really well. WilyD 12:23, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
Trying to singlehandedly throw out a major policy - being bold. Requesting that Jimbo unprecedentedly overrule consensus - being bold, and asking him to be too. You've just very effectively proven that the best way to combat bold edits is with bold edits - not with a policy amendment. If a user boldly tags a page for CSD in error, then boldly revert them. If you created the page, but their CSD is just factually incorrect (G7 when you haven't requested deletion, or A2 when the page is in English, for instance), then, hell, boldly revert them, and include a summary citing WP:IAR. And if anyone gets too critical of you in their responses to this proposal (to the point of blatant WP:CIV violation), don't be afraid to boldly delete their comments. — Francophonie&Androphilie (Je vous invite à me parler) 12:35, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
If someone edits "boldly" these days they'll be blocked faster than you can say revert. Bold edits do occassionaly happen but more often than not, this rule no longer applies. 108.28.162.125 (talk) 02:26, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
It really depends on how one interprets the word bold. WP:BOLD does a good job of emphasizing that being bold refers to situations in which one intends to constructively edit Wikipedia. Anyone can be bold in blanking pages or inserting defamatory comments, but that's not what the policy means. Also, people are bold on Wikipedia all the time. Just by making a change without first consulting others about it, one is being bold. You were bold when you made this edit without first consulting the talk page, and you haven't been blocked yet. Greengreengreenred (talk) 03:21, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
Four days ago I edited the first sentence of France, Wikipedia's 207th most popular article, when, after a day, no editors had responded to my proposal to do so at the article's talk page. I have not been blocked, nor even reverted (though perhaps someone will read this, decide I was too bold, and revert me - and more power to them if they do!). Also, practically no one is blocked "faster than you can say revert": Yesterday I watched an admin calmly give all four levels of user talk page warning to an editor who was vandalizing his user page with personal attacks. Anyways, I'll step back now, since I feel I've reached the limit of appropriate boldness in responding to you, and I'm sure Jimbo can explain this much better than I can. — Francophonie&Androphilie (Je vous invite à me parler) 08:34, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
You're begging the question here. Can you show examples of someone being blocked for simply making a bold edit, as opposed to a series of edits opposed by community consensus or one that ran afoul of a key policy (such as WP:BLP)? I can't support your proposal because you have yet to show evidence of the problem you claim. Resolute 17:03, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

English Wikinews

I know that you have an opinion on this. ☺ Uncle G (talk) 17:04, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

  • It sure didn't take a Meta admin long to shut down that discussion when those who support shutting Wikinews down started to show up. I guess that joke of a project will continue to waste Foundation resources. Resolute 17:53, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Well I'm no fan of Meta after they let Mbz1's abusive trolling of Gwen Gale to run amok for a month or two last year, but an old gadfly like Adam Cuerden popping out of the woodwork to try to torpedo a wiki-project was pretty much dead-on-arrival. Tarc (talk) 18:15, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
Editors who wish to contribute to Wikinews can prepare themselves by studying the style guide.
—Wavelength (talk) 19:55, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

One of Many thanks

Just wanted to say thanks. You made a wealth of information available to everyone to share and contribute to. Broke the boundaries that things like encyclopedia's can only be managed by a few publisher's and a handful of staff. The Original Barnstar

The Original Barnstar
an original Barnstar for being the original wikipedian 0pen$0urce (talk) 16:14, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

C++

Hey Jim,it's the ip from the "Don't Bite The IPs" stuff,my bans are over and now I making this place better for people.But something came across my mind,was C++ used in anyway used in the process of developing the Wiki Language? For I am an amateur programmer and this kinda stuff interest me.74.163.16.121 (talk) 17:58, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

The MediaWiki software is written in PHP. However, the code for the MySQL database that is used as a backend is written partly in C++. Looie496 (talk) 18:32, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

What an incredible *****y waste of my time that was

How does anyone find the time for this nonsense? I'm having nothing further to do with the Prem Rawat article. On and off for six years I tried to draw attention to the miserable revisionism perpetrated there by Rawat followers...started a RFC etc but was met only with abject disinterest and failure by the impartial people to do anything other than to conclude that Momento was 'uneducable' and then to make their FEEBLE excuses and leave. However you might be interested to know that, just like I said, Momento is now having a field day removing a ton of well-sourced material - all critical and of course - with NO opposition WHATSOEVER. Is this really acceptable? Anyway I'm out. Very disappointed to learn how easy it for people to abuse Wikipedia to bias articles. I feel like writing an article to the Times and my children's college... Really... it makes you wonder how Wikipedia articles can be relied on for a balanced picture when the work of years can be obliterated by one or two unconscionable idiots. This really is my last word on that pathetically handled article. Bye!PatW (talk) 20:58, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

I wish I had the time to weigh in there myself. I hope others will. I'll try to take a look soon. It would be helpful for me if you can indicate one single starting point. For example, one clear obvious and easy example of a reliable source that has been excluded unfairly. Or of something that is being "spun" falsely.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 18:54, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
Today I've banned a couple people from the article and warned another one, which has been a long time coming; I would have done it weeks ago, but other forces had different ideas. It honestly never should have gotten to the point where I'd have to do it 4 years after the original case, but it's here now, and sometimes the nuclear option is the only way to keep things from degenerating even further. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 19:13, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
I hear you. This has been a known problem area for a long time. I expect it to continue to be so.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 20:32, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
Correct. There will just be replacement followers to edit the article. Although I said that was my last word since you express some interest in taking a look and to answer your question - Here I attempted to resist one of Momento's moves to remove something that, in it's day was a notable furore and reported widely in newspapers, but that Momento wanted to exclude / play down on grounds of it being 'undue weight' in a BLP etc. The incident was when Rawat's Divine Light Mission's president, one Robert Mishler and another high ranking follower left, denouncing the Guru in various 'whistle-blowing' ways. At the time Prem Rawat was known as 'Guru Maharaji' and he was the recipient of more publicity (mostly adverse) than he has ever had since. In fact this largely bad press compelled Him to become distinctly 'press shy' ever since. That is why most of the sources about Him are from the seventies. The modern sources are mostly 'vanity press' organised by followers. Anyway, the Mishler revelations and other publicised incidents (such as the guy who'd 'pied' Rawat as a protest, being duly nearly killed with a hammer blow to the head by a vengeance-filled 'revered' follower ) contributed to public fears that this was a potentially dangerous cult. At the time public mistrust of cults was at a high following the mass suicides of followers of cult leader Jim Jones at Jonestown in Guyana. Mishler and his associate made the notable and controversial comparison of Guru Maharaj Ji with Jim Jones. Momento wanted to suggest that their claims were 'exclusive' although, as I pointed out, multiple sources, both newspapers and scholars saw fit to cover the incident. PatW (talk) 00:24, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
Well, please stick around but please keep me informed. There's no reason to let apologists win the day.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 00:53, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
Thanks - but I guess it won't be on articles about Rawat since I have managed to get myself 'blown up' by my own bomb :-) PatW (talk) 01:08, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
This article clearly needs to be fully protected. This will force discussion to occur before changes are made. 108.28.162.125 (talk) 01:14, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
Jimbo. I don't know how closely you, or any others are watching the Prem Rawat article. Clearly some are as I have received some private enquiry. However I will let you know if I see 'apologists' return (although I will be impotent to offer opposition myself). Over on Blade's page the banned Rawat faithful are asking him to reconsider. Rather than unblock everyone I concur with the above view that the article should be fully protected to force discussion. Without me or anyone informed enough of the subject to oppose, the article will simply descend into further religiously motivated editing. I do see the fairness in me being also blocked as a party to the 'battle-ground'. Such a 'battle-ground' was the inevitable consequence to opposing committed pro-Rawat editors. PatW (talk) 13:29, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
I'll watch the article as much as I can, but it's going to take several of us. It'll be helpful if you can keep me informed here, thank you for that offer. I do think it is often helpful to have a "everybody out of the water" time-out. I have received myself an angry email from a Rawat faithful editor questioning my views of God, etc.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 14:23, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
Yes - well you're about to be banned yourself from Rawat articles so you'd better watch your behaviour! See Here PatW (talk) 14:43, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
The link I supplied above (to the stuff I described Momento removing plus my counter argument) was archived. It's been moved to here Sorry 'bout that. It's very hard to keep track of all this stuff. PatW (talk) 08:19, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Hi Jimbo, PatW will not be able to keep you informed on the Prem Rawat article as he's been blocked by Risker for suggesting here that (Redacted). Risker has removed that post from here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.203.229.29 (talk) 16:22, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Massive deletion revision changes done to this page

I just wanted to let folks know that a massive revision deletion was poerformed on this page recently causing a lot of discussion comments including some by Jimbo himself to be removed. This has caused the discussions on this page to be incomplete. I have asked the editor (User:Risker) who did the revision to manually restore the talk comments that did not pertain to the affected text that they meant to remove but that discussion is dragging on so I decided to leave this comment here myself to let everyone know to check the revision history.

As a side note this happens a lot and it is my opinion and suggestion that if a large revision deletion occurs like this affecting discussions not part of the offending discussion that the deletion is intended for, that the deletor restores the unintended deletions with a followup edit. This happens occassionally, but not very often. 138.162.0.42 (talk) 19:38, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

As I have explained to the IP on my talk page, all of the edits except for the one edit that was removed and was the basis of the suppressions are still visible on this page. I have suggested that he has some sort of technical problem, because the edits he says cannot be seen are clearly visible on this page. Risker (talk) 19:54, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
138.162, I think you might not quite understand what revision deletion entails: While Risker has made it so that you and I can't see what happened during 40 revisions, he hasn't undone their effects. (He's only removed the content of the very first one of those 40, as it was the one with the privacy policy violation.) Take a look: I've written two other comments on this page, and Risker's suppressed both of them; but press crtl+f (cmd+f on a Mac) and type in "Francophonie&Androphilie." You'll see that my comments are right where they should be. — Francophonie&Androphilie (Je vous invite à me parler) 20:09, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
Its a technical issue with the Rev del tool not me. As I said on your talk page. I can see the comment by Resolute and by Francophonie above that, but not the comment that IP made in between the 2. This is also true of other comments that have been made. If I could't see Resolute's comments then I would agree it might be on my end but I cannot see a technical possibility that would cause a comment in between 2 others on multiple discussion to just not be visible. Of course you can see it because you have the access but we don't have that. As I mentioned before, I have seen this before and not I have commented about it. I have done as much as I am prepared to do since its clear there is no desire to investigate or fix the problem other than to blame it on the anonymous IP. 138.162.0.44 (talk) 20:53, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
Okay, that's a different kettle of fish. The village pump (technical) is fairly regularly monitored by the WMF developers. Would you please consider creating a "bug report" there so that they can examine the situation? If you're choosing to edit anonymously, I won't suggest you create a Bugzilla account (which requires an email address, and makes that email address visible); however, if you make the report there, I will do my best to draw the attention of the developers to this issue. That will also (I hope) put you directly in touch with the people who are best able to resolve the issue, and they will have the benefit of your description of the situation. Risker (talk) 21:11, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
(e/c) You are correct that there is no "technical possibility that would cause a comment in between 2 others on multiple discussion to just not be visible". They are visible. And, to be extra certain, I logged out and checked that yes, it is visible to anonymous users. Given that you state unequivocally that you see the comment above and below, that there is no technical means by which the intervening anon comment could be hidden, and that I have in fact verified that it is visible, then there remain few alternatives other than you are simply mistaken or lying about the supposed missing comment. — Coren (talk) 21:14, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
(e/c x2)Are you sure you're not misreading the edit history? That IP does have a post to User talk:Jimbo Wales in between F&A's reply and Resolute's reply, but it was made to the "Electoral Commission RfC Closure" section, not the "Wikipedia:Bold" section, and is still visible, as you can see above. There are no revisions that would correspond to the IP posting a message in between F&A and Resolute in that section, and I'm pretty sure that revdel and oversight are incapable of removing all traces of a specific revision. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 21:17, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure that you've got it right, Writ Keeper. 138.162, I check this page fairly regularly (being what we call a talk page stalker), and I can assure you that everything that used to be under the "Wikipedia:Bold" section is still there. Just as, as Write Keeper said, the IP edit made between my edit and Resolute's is still there, just not in that section. — Francophonie&Androphilie (Je vous invite à me parler) 21:25, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
Well I don't know what to say I can't see it. I attempted to get a screen shot and load that but of course, the Encyclopedia that "anyone" can edit doesn't allow files to be uploaded without an account. It also appears that the Encyclopedia that "anyone" can edit requires an account to send an Email so since I am not willing to create a new account then I guess I may as well drop the issue. I also have no desire to bring it to another venue. I contacted the editor who did it and added this comment so other editors were aware which is far more than I intended to do. As a note the process for submitting these problems is too complex and beauracratic. It needs to be simpler if you are even remotely serious about having users comment about problems they find. As a measure of curiousity. What does it say between Riskers comment and Francophonie? 138.162.0.44 (talk) 21:30, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
Which comments? Risker and F&A have two comments apiece in this section. The first pair has nothing in between them: you can see the difference between the two at this link. The second pair as a comment by Coren and a comment by myself between them: you can see the difference between the two through this link. Just FYI: even though we can't see the contents of the edits, the edit summaries that are visible in the history tell us which section they were posted in (you should be able to see this, just like we can). On the "View history" tab, at the right of each line, there's a string of text surrounded by parentheses and in italics. Most of them will start with an arrow pointing to the side, then some gray text, then optionally some black text. This is the edit summary. The gray text indicates the section that the comment was posted in. IP 108's final oversighted edit to this page, made at 11:35, 20 November 2012 right after F&A posted, has the edit summary: "(→‎Electoral Commission RfC Closure: This is the trap that many editors fall victim too)". The "Electoral Commission RfC Closure:" bit, in gray, tells us that it was made in the "‎Electoral Commission RfC Closure". And if you look at that section right now, you'll see the comment there. You wouldn't see it in the "Wikipedia:Bold" section because it was never written there. But 108's edits, barring some bizarre bug with oversight, are all accounted for. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 21:41, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
The comments that are missing are not in this section. Look above in the section titled Wikipedia:Bold. At the bottom of that discussion is a comment by Risker and above that one from Francophonie. There should be another comment in between by the IP. Again, this is just one example, it is a by product and collatoral damage caused by using the rev del tool across multiple revisions. The tool is crap, it always has been. It works ok for one revision but when used across multiple revisions that include other comments for other discussions it napalms the other comments. Yes I can see the histories and that's what I was pointing to above. There are edits missing from 108, Jimbo, Conti and others but I can't prove it because I don't have a habit of screen printing the discussion pages in case someone rev del's them and I don't have access. But, all those comments in the history that are lined out, have content that do not show up. Even the edits by clue bot where restored. So if you look at what Cluebot archived then compare that last archive to the current page, you should see that some of what Cluebot archived was restored here meaning that it will archive the same content twice. I'm sorry I don't really have the time to keep fighting this. I brough the problem up in good faith and I have tried to explain it as best I could but if you all don't understand, or I am not explaining it clearly enough then at this point I don't think I can do anything more to help. 138.162.0.42 (talk) 21:57, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

I, too, am going to drop this for now, but I just want to say that it's nice to see a user complaining about inefficiency and bureaucracy get speedy responses from three administrators on the founder's talk page - after, of course, a discussion on the talk page of one of those administrators, in which another administrator and a bureaucrat took the time to reply. In fact, I'm the only non-admin in this whole conversation! If there is a cabal, they're doing a pretty bad job at suppressing dissent. — Francophonie&Androphilie (Je vous invite à me parler) 22:16, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

138.162.0.42, whatever you are doing that's fogging up your glasses so badly, you need to stop doing it. ☺ One of my edits was revision deleted, and yet what I wrote in that edit is clearly still on this page. I can see it, right there in the #English Wikinews section. Just as I can see commentary by Jimbo in #Electoral Commission RfC Closure and two comments by 108.28.162.125 in #‎Wikipedia:Bold, all of whose original edits have been oversighted like mine, but whose text is still there right now, datestamped signatures and everything, like mine. There's no technical issue to address. The symptoms that you describe quite simply do not exist in the first place. Not for the several people who have written above, and not for me, one of the very people whose edits were oversighted. Uncle G (talk) 03:19, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, I don't know what the problem is, but it seems like it's a technical issue on your end somehow, 138. I'm not seeing anything duplicated by Cluebot, nor anything unaccounted for. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 07:09, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

a kitten for you

Javiruz (talk) 23:51, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

diacritics

as you've commented on this before, but declined to make a directive out of it, I was wondering how far wikipedia diacritic usage should go to conform to native use? just now Istanbul has been referred for renaming, to conform to the renaming of other articles, that has been ongoing to enforce native diacritics on subjects which are found in English language press without them. -- 70.24.250.26 (talk) 07:57, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

I think we have gone way way way too far in diacritic use. But I'm not going to get directly involved because I find the whole thing exhausting.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 10:21, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
I agree with the Honourable Gentlemen. This is one of those perennial problems which I think should be left in a hard to reach filing cabinet. It's neither important enough, or easily resolvable, to revisit doktorb wordsdeeds 10:23, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Corruption

Hi Jimmy,

Is it ok for a candidate for a senior post in a chapter organization of a large silent conflict of interest? Especially if two candidate live in the same house in which a candidate owns the house and the other pays rent to the other candidate to live there? Would you consider it appropriate for these people do not have their commercial relationship to the foundation and the public disclosed, especially if these people have been applied together for money to the GAC already? Would you consider it ok that these two people were sanctioned for abusive behavior on Wikipedia, and threatened to block other member of chapter who objected to their flooding DYK with poorly written articles?

I am writing this under the wrong user name and not mentioning names as I fear retaliation from the two people involved, if they discover my identity. Ced Bix (talk) 03:37, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm unable to comment due to the vagueness of what you are saying. It is very very difficult for me to imagine how people's private living arrangements could possibly have anything to do with anything. If you'd like to email me with details that you don't feel comfortable sharing publicly, then I might understand better what it is you are talking about.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 07:07, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
It isn't hard to guess who you are talking about, both in name and chapter organization. But I won't comment further, except to say that it is the true height of cowardice to register a bad-hand account from which you can feel free to cast aspersions. Resolute 15:50, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
I don't know what this is about, but using an alternative account for edits that would be "highly controversial within his/her family, social or professional circle" is legitimate. "Bad-hand accounts" describe those used for disruptive activity. Wnt (talk) 10:07, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
Well, I've politely asked Ced Bix on their talkpage about their other account. In the absence of an answer, I guess SPI may be the next step. Meanwhile, this now seems to be under discussion at WP:ANI#Bad faith account -- pls consider blocking as well. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 14:18, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Communications Data Bill

First, I don't think we have an article on this UK bill even though it is quite important and has been in the press a great deal. We do have this Communications Data Bill 2008 but this is about a previous version of the bill that was not adopted.

Open Rights Group has this wiki page and this blog post which you can use to get yourself informed.

We're coming this week to a crucial moment in the politics around this bill -- the report of the Draft Communications Data Bill Joint Select Committee is due out, probably on Friday. The committee is widely expected to say negative things about the bill, but the concern is that they may not go far enough to kill it completely. I have met with Home Secretary Theresa May and others from the Home Office to repeat and explain to them in more detail what is wrong with the bill, but they are so far completely unmoved.

This is the sort of thing such that, in some time when it comes to a vote before full Parliament that I think a UK-only Wikipedia blackout would be incredibly helpful, if the community agrees. I'm going to do my best as an individual (in conjunction with various civil liberties groups in the UK and sympathetic MPs) to put pressure on the government to back down from this, but it is unclear whether that will have sufficient impact. When I said to the Home Secretary that it appears to me that the general public does not support this bill, she indicated that the general public doesn't seem to care or even be aware of it. That's where I think we can help.

The bill is really bad, and would permit the government to require wholesale collection of huge volumes of data by ISPs and others, at a positively staggering expense to the taxpayer.

I'd love to see further discussion here about how we might help to raise public awareness of this.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 07:05, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

It's late, and I don't know if I'll get back to this before Friday, but here's a really slapdash start to an article: Communications Data Bill 2012. But [2] [3] are full of articles I haven't even looked at - nor have I yet described the good work of a certain Jimmy Wales in opposing it. Wnt (talk) 08:25, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
Thanks Wnt, it's a start. I made a redirect from Communications Data Bill (which was a redirect to Communications Data Bill 2008). --Atlasowa (talk) 14:23, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
I recently tried to read up on this on-wiki, it was very confusing. There is:
It seems a bit unclear in the articles, what is (or was!) just planned and what is in force today. Having read the "Home Office Voluntary Code of Practice on Data Retention", can someone explain to me how the "Communications Data Bill 2012" can possibly be even worse? --Atlasowa (talk) 14:39, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
I think a key issue to be addressed here is Theresa May's claim that contact data helped save lives in 25 to 40% of 30,000 cases. This sets off my bull-O-meter, and various others online [4] but it would be nice to find an actual reliable source that pulls apart this statistic and explains it convincingly. I have no idea, but I'm suspicious she's making a reference to some kind of 999 location-finding feature, but surely there's a distinction between locating voluntary calls to police at the time of the emergency vs. 12-month old records of when you browsed Wikipedia. Wnt (talk) 10:16, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
We could definitely use some UK editors here... there's only so much I can do, and our resources seem sparse. For example, there is a "Sir Bonar Neville-Kingdom", who is credited for an extraordinary text in favor of the bill I would like to quote, if real [5] who appears to exist (in some sense) online, reputedly Data-sharing Czar or data czar of the UK; according to a purported April Fools joke ? he is proponent of a NODISS plan and the UK's first blogging Permanent Secretary ... I have no idea how much of any of this is real, how much is some kind of elaborate UK in-joke or serious disinformation. (I've since put up an orange traffic cone at Sir Bonar Neville-Kingdom) Wnt (talk) 11:14, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Election Commission RFC

Would it be possible to close this RFC soon? We already have a few issues that need the appointees' attention. Thanks! --Rschen7754 00:57, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Happy-melon has 17 votes, Lord Roem has 17 votes and one procedural objection as he is not an admin, MBisanz has 34 votes, Avraham has 13 votes.
So I choose Happy-melon, Lord Roem, Mbisanz, and ask Avraham if he will kindly support.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 09:51, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
Thank you! --Rschen7754 10:07, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Commons admins asleep at the switch?

Jimbo, I started a thread on the Commons' admin noticeboard to alert them to a fairly easy to spot pattern of copyright violation. During that discussion, I posted several examples with evidence that they were copyright violations. Some of those were subsequently nominated for deletion and deleted, as expected. What seems concerning is that other examples I gave have not been deleted or even nominated for deletion. In one case, that involves a set of over 100 copyright violation images. If telling admins on the admin noticeboard that something on Commons is a copyright violation doesn't provoke any action, something is seriously wrong. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 19:52, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

You're of course welcome to hunt down copyright violations, and it looks like half of the files you've identified actually are. But the people who disagreed with you did so because they didn't think some files were copyvios, and figuring out if they are is complicated. Your "pattern" is something that you and other volunteers you recruit are free to use in looking for further infringing files - but if you're suggesting anything more, i.e. to abandon the assumption of good faith based on what a contributor's interests are, then that is a bad idea. Wnt (talk) 21:55, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
Wnt, once again you have managed to misunderstand what is being said. I am not suggesting that we abandon good faith based on someone's "area of interest". I am suggesting that uploads which follow a certain pattern are very likely to be copyright violations as I have demonstrated in that thread and elsewhere. The interests and intentions of the uploader are completely irrelevant. We are not talking about users who have misunderstood the copyrights involved - we are talking about deliberate and wilful copyright violation (including in some cases image manipulation to make sources harder to find and falsification of EXIF data). There is nothing complicated about the 100+ images uploaded by User:Freemont Solstice. Despite the filenames, the images have been available from many sources (here, for example) since 2010. That user is likely a sockpuppet of a repeat offender. Why are these images still on Commons? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 22:29, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
If you suspect this user of being a copyright violator and sockpuppet, why is the only message on his talk page a completely unjustified warning that "Commons has a specific scope". (That is some lovely artwork from a notable public event that is most definitely within scope) Since all of Fremont Solstice's uploads are photos of this one event, I have no idea how you decided he's a sockpuppet, but he certainly hasn't had a chance to defend himself. Wnt (talk) 00:04, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
I have no idea what you are trying to say. Users cannot delete their own uploads. I have told the Commons admins that the uploads are copyright violations and provided evidence for my claim. They have failed to act. This has nothing to do with Commons scope in any way - copyright violation is a legal issue, not a content issue. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 05:41, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
The images you reported depict public nudity. In cases like this, Commons admins are likely to suspect prudery as the prime motivation and tend to be less rigorous in investigating. This is to be expected, and in cases of copyvio in situations like this you need to push harder. Herostratus (talk) 16:18, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
User education is the first and most important line of defense against copyvio uploads. If you spot them and you don't contact the user involved, you're wasting most of your effort. Contacting the user is also the best way to get OTRS tickets or other evidence that files are actually not copyvios. Wnt (talk) 17:23, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
Wnt, what part of this is confusing you? These are uploads of copyright violating material by throw-away accounts (some of which are very likely sockpuppets). On a different subject, how about instead of making nonsensical comments every time I post something here, you stick to the ridiculous troll bait reference desks? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 18:15, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
DC, are you pointing to a generally cavalier attitude among Commons admins toward copyright law or is there a pattern to it; for example, is it uploader-related (they tolerate their own or their mates' violations) or topic-related as Herostratus suggests, or is it mainly breaches of a particular section of the law? --Anthonyhcole (talk) 10:07, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
Its a combination of all of them. First - Herostratus is right that certain topics get less investigation due to their nature. Adult/nudity especially. Its certain if something x-rated gets nominated, bad faith & prude accusations will be thrown at the nominator very quickly. Second - as many of the admins on commons are heavily 'invested' in the adult/nudity area, you have to fight against that in order to get anyone to listen. And finally - even if you manage to negotiate those first two hurdles above, and provide a legitimate legal reason it should be removed, the apathy from the general admin corps is just depressing. There are a few people who take it seriously, but when you have other admins who work to get someone banned from nominating copyvios for deletion, despite the validity of their arguments, under the premise they shouldnt be 'harrassing' regular commons editors... Its a mess. Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:34, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
Is there a reliable estimate of the scale of the problem, the percentage of Commons files that breach copyright? Are we talking Napster, Youtube, less? --Anthonyhcole (talk) 11:44, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
Reliable? Not that I have seen. As a total amount of uploaded files, anecdotally its quite low. However once you start drilling down to subject level - within that subject copyvio incidences can be quite high. The adult/nudity area gets a lot of attention by its nature, so its always going to skew the numbers either way. What it really needs is a full audit by subject. So audit 2% of files in each area and work your way up to a site-wide score. Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:56, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
Perhaps we could pay someone to do that; and maybe get them to assess the percentage and characteristics of violating files nominated for deletion that are not deleted. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 12:30, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
(EC) I would offer my services, but I dont think the WMF would be willing to pay my fees ;) It would be a solution however. Some sort of research grant maybe. In terms of auditing, it would be relatively simple to do once the list of files to be looked at is identified. Can probably knock up a script to pick X random files out of a catagory easily. (There is probably one already). I might try doing a very small-scale test on the weekend. Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:37, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
While I would be very (positively) surprised if the WMF were prepared to fund an impartial study looking into this point, there's no harm in asking. Andreas JN466 01:28, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
Really? Well, I'll ask anyway. Do you know who the contact would be? Do they have a research department? --Anthonyhcole (talk) 03:31, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
Not offhand. You could ask Jimbo. :) Andreas JN466 08:30, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
Not going to happen. The kind of people qualified to do reasonable assessments of copyright infringement are bloody expensive. In truth the heavy copyvio sources are already well known. Adult content (although the actual percentage isn't that high due to all the penis photos, PD stuff and the suicide girl stuff), current even imagery and public figures where we don't realdy have a pic (for example File:Тед Кинг.jpg is probably a copyvio).©Geni 10:23, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
The 'it will be too expensive' line wont fly given the WMF's public financials. They clearly have the money, its getting them to use it thats the problem. They could employ one person for a year at $100,000 to do a decent audit, and it would be a drop in the ocean of their available funds. (But they would be able to get someone to do it for much cheaper than that anyway) Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:03, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
$100K is a pretty significant chunk of money and wouldn't cover the cost of a year's work of a serious copyright lawyer (rather than the copyrights nerds relying on a mix of instinct and bitter experience while hastily googling for a copy of belizean copyright law that we use on a day to day basis). incidentally I know some people consider this impolite but I've long since grown tied of certian types of game playing. Who's sock are you?©Geni 23:57, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
It would be in the public's interest to know the percentage and estimated number of files that are offered as free by Wikimedia Commons, but are in actual fact copyrighted and hosted improperly. It would also be in the long-term interest of the Foundation, as reliable data on this point might lead to preventative efforts and related changes in policies. Andreas JN466 13:48, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
I was not trying to suggest anything about Commons admins in general, but I agree with what others have said here. Perhaps Commons admins are not in the habit of reading their noticeboard, but it seems odd that after my identification of a string of copyright violations which have been deleted, some admin wouldn't take the five minutes required to look at the evidence I have provided and delete the files. Mattbuck did helpfully suggest that I file a deletion request, though. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 13:20, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
Would take a while. Files are too old for special:nuke and in any case its kinda questionable if commons admins have the power to deletion on that kind of scale without going through a request for deletion.©Geni 10:23, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
I kind of keep asking this at every discussion about commons and porn, but why, again, do we allow porn images of identifiable people to be uploaded by brand new accounts who merely add a {{pd}} tag to it and nothing more? It's blatantly obvious that a great deal of these images are taken from random sites on the internet and uploaded to commons. It's so irritating that nothing's being done about this on commons. --Conti|✉ 12:47, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
Perhaps we could ask our researcher to measure the percentage of nudity/porn images that fit that category. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 13:05, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
My personal opinion is that allowing anyone to upload images and have them immediately available for reuse will inevitably lead to copyright issues. Admins and/or trusted users should be vetting the files for quality, scope, and copyright status before they are available off-site. Short of that, Commons admins should be aware of clues to copyright violation, which was the purpose of the original discussion on Commons. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 13:29, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
True. But the potential damage is far greater when it comes to nude/pornographic pictures of identifiable people, and as such we should not treat those exactly the same as the others. --Conti|✉ 14:05, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
Commons admin Rd232 has been trying to make the same point on Commons. While I agree, conflating copyright violation issues (legal) with other concerns (moral) is problematic, especially on Commons where there is a knee-jerk reaction to any attempt to delete anything relating to nudity or sexuality. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 14:23, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
Did you ever actually nominate those Fremont images for deletion? Your thesis here is that Commons is full of copyvios, which you base on an argument about the dates these files were posted to other free photo sites and that an editor (who you have not contacted on his talk page either) added a page with the name "userpage" to the uploader's userpage. Someone has to actually evaluate evidence like this, not just delete because you said so. Commons admins have to actually consider the real possibility that this user is the one who took the photo series and posted it in various free places around the web, and give him a chance to respond. Everyone knows that people upload a lot of copyvio material to Commons, and volunteers are needed to root it out, but if you don't propose it for deletion then it's no surprise if it doesn't get deleted. Wnt (talk) 15:29, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
Wnt, anyone familiar with my history of identifying copyright violations (and sockpuppets) should act "just because I said so". :) Delicious carbuncle (talk) 16:52, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
Well, the moral issues could very quickly become a legal issue. I get your point, though, we should treat these problems separately. I think we can do more with the moral issue, though. Commons assumes good faith both in terms of copyright issues (if they add a CC-tag, it's assumed they have the rights) and in terms of moral issues (commons assumes the models gave consent and know which license the pictures would have, and what that actually means). I'm fine with assuming good faith about copyright issues (how else would commons be able to work?), but I'd rather not assume good faith that any porn image uploaded by a brand new user has no problems whatsoever. --Conti|✉ 19:33, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
I'd be inclined to differentiate here between people photographed in private and people who choose in advance to go nude at a public event. The risk of former lovers and others posting intimate snaps that were never intended to be published is real and we need to be hyper cautious about things which could be such images. But as far as nude photographs go, the least risky are surely those such as Delicious Carbuncle's examples of people who go to a public event clad only in body paint. There is a separate issue about copyvio, but my experience is that if you tag a copyvio for deletion and give a clear reason why it is a copyvio then it gets deleted. I've just checked through my deletion tags on Commons and the Commons Admins are not "asleep at the switch". ϢereSpielChequers 22:50, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
To repeat, I'm not talking about content - this is a copyright issue. My examples are examples of copyright violation, not examples of anything else. I've identified over 100 images that are obvious copyright violations. I did so on the Commons admin noticeboard. With evidence. And they are still on Commons. Feel free to tell me how I need submit a deletion request for those even though I've pointed them out and discussed their particulars on the admin noticeboard. And now I've discussed it here. I'm beginning to wonder if "wilfully negligent" isn't a better descriptor than "asleep". Delicious carbuncle (talk) 04:00, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
Your evidence is some site that seems to indicate the photos were uploaded sooner ... unless the site allows people to edit posts after the fact, or is otherwise inaccurate in dating? A site which has a policy "please do NOT upload any copyrighted images ... The images uploaded here become public images for which PicsCrazy cannot guarantee any privacy." [6] In other words, it is something that would need to be discussed. Your evidence apparently hasn't convinced anyone to decide to file the AfD for you. It's not like it's that hard to file one yourself. Wnt (talk) 07:22, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
Looks like you'll get a chance to make your arguments at Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Fremont Solstice. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 15:14, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
@Delicious Carbuncle, you may not have been talking about content, but I was replying to Conti who was talking about the moral issues of people photographed in the nude who might or might not have agreed to that. As for whether Commons admins are negligent about Copyright, they have processes for dealing with Copyvio, you raised the issue of copyvio on their admin noticeboard and various people have referred you to the Commons process for deleting copyvios. I've attested that I've recently used that procedure to get some copyvios deleted from Commons and my experience was that the process worked fine. So Commons has a procedure for dealing with Copvio, you've been directed to that procedure and you've been told that it works. So in what way could the Commons admins possibly be described as negligent? Also it now seems that someone else has spotted a copyvio problem with those files and has nominated them for deletion, but not only are they following the process they have also made the telling observation that there are so many different cameras involved that it is unlikely to be the work of one photographer. ϢereSpielChequers 15:28, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
That argument is unworthy of you, Were. If here in Wikipedia I go to AN and say that I've spotted 100 articles that are straight copies off someone else's website, admins would take action of their own accord. They would not mill about in some Monty Pythonesque manner, looking at their fingernails and stating that it's nothing to do with them, because they are just volunteers, and anyway, nothing can be done until a report has been filed at WP:CP. Andreas JN466 17:05, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
It isn't a case of "nothing can be done until a report has been filed at", as in this case what usually happens is that if someone goes to the wrong board people will direct them to the right place. That happens on Wikipedia and it happens on Commons. If the person who raises the issue is a newbie then hopefully they'll get a message such as "Thanks for that, next time can you raise them at..." with a link to the correct board. As for the point about these being straight copies off someone's website, as WNT and others have pointed out that can be complex, you need to check whether the licenses are compatible and which website is a copy of which, Commons has millions of images that were copied from other Websites - nearly two million just from the Geograph, and it is not unheard of for people to copy from Commons to other sites. So simply asserting that 100 pages are straight copies of something else isn't sufficient reason for their deletion. In this case someone else has spotted that they were taken by multiple cameras and therefore unlikely to be as per the uploaders assertion, and they have filed a deletion request and notified the uploader. ϢereSpielChequers 18:09, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
It was obvious that these were very likely to be copyright violations because they exactly followed the pattern which I had described at the beginning of the discussion. The link I provided was enough to confirm that. Had I started a deletion discussion, I would not have bothered to provide any more evidence than that and the images would have been deleted on that basis. Let's not pretend this is a complicated case - it isn't. Any Commons admin could have looked at the link I provided and deleted the images without discussion. There is no need to "vote" on copyright violation. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 18:51, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

- Yes, I do agree with the concerns, but there are good admins working diligently at Commons - it seems specifically that in the sex area at commons there are problems and there are clearly currently involved and conflicted admins that need removing from any authority there - I have recently been nominating a few obvious copyright violations (not in the sex categories though) and users/admins have been actioning them in a decent manner and many thanks for their efforts and work . Youreallycan 19:05, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Oh here we go down the rabbit hole again...
Prove it. You say that admins who comment on sexuality DRs are involved and conflicted? Offer some evidence. I am one such admin, in that I comment on and watch sexuality files. I even now have a bot tell me when new sexuality images are uploaded so I can put them on my watchlist, and (at the same time,) check for copyvios. I don't have a problem with sexuality images being deleted if they are copyright violations, I simply ask that there be some proof of it.
Consider commons:Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Othertree - the rationale here was "too many cameras". But once we removed from consideration all the images which were derivatives of other, uncontested, Commons images, we were left with two cameras, which were taking photos in different years. No issue there - the original nominator didn't look closely enough, and so got a false positive. DC, you say your record should mean people trust you implicitly. Disregarding the fact that you only ever seem to appear on Commons in order to argue and ignore people telling you to use the processes we have set up, any admin who deleted images just because you said so would be negligent. If any other user said your photo was "a copyright violation from X", and an admin just deleted it without checking, you'd be shouting at us over that. Any deleting admin must check the evidence when making their decision.
To return to the original point - we have a process for dealing with copyright violations, please use it. Furthermore, AGF is an important principle on Wikimedia, and we try to apply it. We will not ban people instantly for uploading copyright violations. Copyright is difficult, and most people don't understand it. We AGF, delete the copyvios and tell the user what they did wrong. Then, if they persist, we ban them. But we give them the chance to change their behaviour. Many users don't take this chance, but it is important that we offer it nonetheless.
To summarise: YRC, put up or shut up. DC, we will not change our policy on new users, please use deletion requests or {{copyvio}} for obvious cases. -mattbuck (Talk) 05:58, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
Mattbuck, you should consider getting into the public relations industry. You have a natural habit of not addressing the issues that people bring up but instead talking about similar issues which are more easily defended. YRC is not talking about "sexuality images being deleted if they are copyright violations" and I did not suggest that anything uploaded by Othertree was a copyright violation. I believe YRC is referring to the reluctance of certain admins (including yourself) to delete any image depicting nudity or sexuality, but I will let them answer you. I did not and would not suggest that a new user would uploads copyrighted material be blocked. What I did suggest was that in instances which fit the pattern of copyright violation that I have described, the user be hard blocked. These are generally hot-and-run accounts which will never be used again. The intent is to reduce the number of sock puppets uploading still more copyvio. Copyright violation is not a matter which needs to be voted on. I am aware of several out-of-process deletions on Commons, but they do not relate to copyright violations. If an admin examines the evidence and mistakenly deletes an image, the user is free to contest that deletion. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 15:04, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
Yes DC you're right - I was referring to the reluctance of certain admins to delete any image depicting nudity or sexuality (including User:Mattbuck) - who is actually one of the main admin players in the commons sex area, as he says, he has a bot that is specifically focused on sex uploads - he must have a massive watchlist - To be a bit clearer - I am basically boycotting wiki commons because of the issues relating to sexual pictures and repeated admins there continuing to free speech the project in a sex sex sex direction - anuses with ginger hair around them - keep keep keep User:Cirt User:Mattbuck User:Russavia - these are three main commons admins that are involved in this issue - the pedobear one was finally globally indeffed blocked from all wiki projects after multiple complaints, the others are still active in the sexual deletion requests and uploads and have ongoing authority at Wiki Commons - - Youreallycan 20:09, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
You claimed "Wnt, anyone familiar with my history of identifying copyright violations (and sockpuppets) should act "just because I said so". :)"this makes it pretty clear you don't know copyright that well.©Geni 23:01, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
Geni. I make no claim to expertise in copyright and that discussion is not so much about copyright but about Commons policy. The situation described is at odds with both policy and guidelines as they are now written. I don't think it is helpful for Commons to accept images that are not freely licensed on Flickr, even from the copyright holder/Flickr account owner. Incidentally, User:Othertree has been blocked on Commons for sockpuppetry. Then unblocked. Then blocked again (although their main account remains unblocked). So I guess I'm right some of the time. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 00:22, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
Your claim was ""Wnt, anyone familiar with my history of identifying copyright violations (and sockpuppets) should act "just because I said so"" " right some of the time" or frankly even most of the time isn't good enough if you want to make that claim. Reason being is that because if you aren't the kind of copyright nerd who spends their time memorising all the weird corner cases you will end up doing a lot of damage because well have wikimedians who are that obsessive.©Geni 01:55, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
Geni, I think I have a pretty good idea of what I meant by my own words. I am not a copyright nerd, have never claimed to be, and have no desire to be one (or to represent myself as one). Frankly, the pattern I have shown is one that could be identified by a bot (but not an edit filter, because it relies on categorization). I was not suggesting that anything should be deleted simply on my say-so, just that admins should investigate my claims. I will not always be right, but no "damage" will be done by taking a look at what I say. I'm not quite sure why we are talking at cross-purposes here, but I stand by my statement. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 03:19, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Cyberbullying and WIkipedia's role

Some time ago you expressed an interest in this topic when I raised it here and expressed thoughts towards our doing better in this regard. With that encouragement and the encouragement of others, including Maggie Dennis who spoke to the WMF legal team to ensure they are aware of the matter, I have moved the discussion forward to a current Village Pump discussion. I hope the topic is still on your radar. If so a brief note of encouragement to the other editors there might be appropriate. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 14:00, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. This is good work you are doing.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 14:58, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
With a good following wind we may make a difference. While sites like Facebook are much easier to use for bullying I'm sure that kids use our pages to bully other kids. We are used to seeing this as vandalism, not bullying. I hope to help people understand that some vandalism is cyberbullying. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 18:29, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Naser al-Din Shah slide 1.jpg

Further information: User talk:Drmies § I can't stay away

Hi Jimbo, I've fallen down the rabbit hole of this discussion commons:Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Naser al-Din Shah slide 1.jpg re: the expectations of the Commons image repository, and whether there are indeed criteria for acceptability, and, if so, who makes such decisions. At question is a poorly drawn image, which some deem as having an educational value. Feel free to pass on this if it's too trivial, but I'm curious as to the larger intent of the Commons, its criteria for inclusion, and whether anyone minds the store. Thanks and cheers, 99.0.80.70 (talk) 18:22, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Points taken, Uncle G. This was the first, and perhaps last time I'll have waded into a discussion at Commons. But such discussions--where the parsing of policy and a sort of myopia trump a rather obvious decision-- crop up on Wikipedia as well, and don't particularly help the projects, unless they lead to a honing of policy. My guess is that Jimbo is well aware of such issues, and is, perhaps, frustrated by them from time to time as well. This is, of course, common to discourse outside Wikipedia, too. But I make no apologies for sharing such discussions with friends; what we do here is transparent, even if we choose opacity re: our personal identities. 99.0.80.70 (talk) 20:12, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
Naser al-Din Shah slide 1.jpg is not a legally controversial or disturbing image, it is just not very good and Commons will easily live without it. The real problem is the use of procedure on Commons to block the deletion of images that most reputable image libraries would not touch with a ten foot pole.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 05:58, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Another graph question

Is the fundraising goal not "as much as possible" this year? 75.166.195.241 (talk) 02:30, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm afraid I don't understand what you are asking. In any event, the day-to-day strategy about which banners are run where, etc., is not something that I'm involved with at all, so if you are asking about particular per-day goals, etc. - I don't know.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 14:53, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
The shape of the curve is just different than most years, that's all. It's good that you are so successful that you don't need to try hard anymore, but imagine how good it would feel to make as much as you can and then distribute it to the almost one in five long time contributors who are living below the poverty line. 75.166.195.241 (talk) 17:25, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Economics graph removed from several articles

The graph in question

Jimbo, File:Employment growth by top tax rate.jpg has been removed from several articles recently by people who say it is biased politically. However, it is not clear whether the people who have been removing it are similarly biased against the conclusion which is suggests. Please see the discussions at Talk:Economics for more information. Jimbo, can you please have someone see whether [7] and [8] are factually accurate, to settle this? 70.59.27.75 (talk) 14:54, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

This is a content dispute and not for me to decide. But speaking as an ordinary editor, the graph is absolutely and totally biased to the point of absurdity. Such oversimplifications to make a political point are the very definition of bias. The data was taken from US historical data and so ends up being a comparison of an era when the top tax rate was 80-90% to various modern eras. But that 80-90% era coincided with the post-war boom, which was caused by a large number of factors, which may or may not have included tax rates on the highest earners.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 17:03, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
This is an IP sock of Dualus (talk · contribs). See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Dualus - Alison ❤ 19:33, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
This graph has also been removed from several articles since the US elections.

Jimbo, I am certain that if our positions were reversed, I would want you to tell me about Art Okun's mistake in 1975 in which he used year-over-year correlations instead of run lengths which is why the IMF recently radically reversed their position on austerity and many commentators suggest they did not go far enough. The graph is historically accurate, and in complete agreement with the new IMF anti-austerity position which had been pro-austerity since Art Okun's 1975 math error was identified and corrected last year. What governs income inequality more than the top effective tax bracket rate? Again, there is no doubt in my mind that if our positions were reversed I would expect no less than complete (and persistent!) honesty on such topics, whether they concern the toxicity of heavy metals or the plain truth about the position of the peak of the Laffer curve. There is a correct mathematical answer which may not be politically comfortable, but is by definition free from bias. I suggest that those who insist against evidence that the peak of the Laffer curve is less than 0.5 are in fact more biased than the accurate historical information on the graph. I am sorry if this is uncomfortable, but it is the truth, it is verifiable, and it is easy for anyone to prove it by examining the veracity of [9] and [10] (which are summarized in this deleted section.) 199.16.130.122 (talk) 05:46, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

  • Jimmy is right that the graph tendentiously implies causation between marginal tax rates and economic growth in different eras of 20th century American capitalism. Life is more complex. One could generate bar graphs of similar quality relating the average number of television channels on American televisions to economic growth (fewer channels = more growth). That's probably at least as high a correlation, I speculate — but it's a false relationship, there is no necessary causation there, rather declining growth rates are a function of time and the gradual disintegration of industrial manufacturing in the United States. I'm actually chiming in here to offer assistance to Dualus back into the WP fold if at some future date he wants to move past the POV axe-grinding, edit-warring, and sword-crossing with ideological opponents and to become a serious contributor of NPOV historical material. It's probably a six month or one year process getting back into good graces, I would guess, and will absolutely require a fundamental change in attitude as to what WP is about and one's place in it. But glancing at your edit history, there seems to be a good amount of energy, dedication, and commitment, albeit misdirected. Drop me an email if you want to talk. MutantPop@aol.com. best, —Tim /// Carrite (talk) 05:56, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
This graph, redone by a non-banned user, has not been systematically deleted (yet.)
So do you believe, then, that the IMF was in error to reverse their position on austerity last month? In any case, thank you for your kind offer. I am sorry that you believe the use of mathematical proof techniques and adherence to their results is tendentious. My contributions stand on their own, and although I concentrate on controversial articles, I fully realize that these sorts of accusations come with such an interest. The vast bulk of my efforts stand unchallenged, and for those who question my commitment to improving the encyclopedia, I would point to my recent GA on Birth control ("before" version) as representative of the typical quality of my ordinary work here which does not get swept up in silly censorship games. 199.16.130.122 (talk) 06:04, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

I have been involved through third opinion with a related content dispute on Trickle-down economics. My general advice then and now is that these primary source graphs are often being used in a way that constitutes synthesis. This sort of graph should not be used to draw conclusions or imply arguments about the validity of any particular economic policy. Even the combination of two series such as the above graph is original research. I see very little use for such an OR graph in any article. Gigs (talk) 15:14, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

The synthesis argument is not convincing because this particular controversy is central to the current most prominent political debate in Washington, D.C.[11][12][13] It is very easy to find prominent eminent authorities who agree with the proposition that raising taxes on the rich creates jobs. Similarly, I can find no sources saying that raising taxes on the rich slows the economy or job growth which are based on empirical data. There are plenty of op-eds and publications in WP:FRINGE "Austrian economics" journals, but nothing peer reviewed by mainstream academic journals. Do you know of any? 81.169.144.135 (talk) 15:28, 17 November 2012 (UTC)


I don't think the graph represents either a biased or incorrect view. The only thing it says to me is that as tax rates go up, job growth is relatively unaffected. Are you folks saying the left scale is exaggerated? It is, but the size of the numbers themselves is sufficiently obvious to make that issue unimportant to me. Sure the variations in tax structure over the years make any comparison difficult and I would like to see more detail, but I doubt the higher granularity would make a difference. The argument is that top tax rate doesn't stifle growth. This may be because the top tax rate affects a tiny portion of the population that is more concerned with wealth management than income. I'm saying that as an old person who is more interested in managing wealth. Bob Calder 17:47, 17 November 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by B calder (talk • contribs)

  • The general issue here is whether "original research" should trump sources when removing material. If you have a reliable source that says that raising taxes creates jobs, or an herb is helpful against a disease, etc., does the naysaying editor's general belief and assumption that "that can't work", in the absence of any cited source that says it doesn't work, override your source because "it must be biased somehow"? This was also the issue in the great VnT debate. When there are sources to say that something works and it doesn't work, obviously the best solution is "these say yes(ref) and these say no(ref)"; but when an editor has no source obviously the only "neutral" solution available to him is to expunge all data that conflicts with his POV. Wnt (talk) 17:48, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
Minor point, but the example here isn't suggesting that raising taxes creates jobs (the overall tax rate as a percent of GDP has been remarkably constant in the US over centuries), but whether shifting the tax burden to high income earners creates jobs. I think it is strictly helpful to the encyclopedia and its readers to support the theory prevalent in the peer reviewed academic journal reviews and the historical data when they are agreement, even when there is a huge amount of paid advocacy from the rich in opposition. I hope Jimbo recognizes this. 71.215.79.206 (talk) 21:43, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
A graph that, unlike the two previous ones, is totally unbiased. Argh.

I hope that the above chart clears up any confusion. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:43, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Income equality had a more beneficial impact on economic growth than trade openness, sound political institutions, and foreign investment. Berg, Andrew G.; Ostry, Jonathan D. (2011). "Equality and Efficiency". Finance and Development. 48 (3). International Monetary Fund.
I understand that those who are politically opposed to the proposition that raising taxes on the rich creates jobs would like to rebut the historical data and the theory of the academic hegemony reflected in the first graph above which has been removed from more than a dozen articles. I also understand that there is no substantial opposing data or theory in reliable sources since Dr. Okun's 1975 error was caught last year. The clumsy pirates-vs-temperature attempt at an implication that there is no causation or correlation is strictly false as explained in [14], in particular its Chart 4 shown to the right. I look forward to the day when Wikipedia economics content disputes are decided by those who do not hold ideology above accuracy. 207.224.47.134 (talk) 15:14, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
The problem is that the average net rate on total income does not appear to be linked to higher economic growth at all. During the 91% marginal rate years, the average net rate was reduced by the tremendous use of non-taxable income, deductions, and tax shelters. There was no "alternative minimum tax" in those days. Also the economic growth during WW II and Korea is included in that "graph" which makes reliance on it fatuous entirely. GDP growth rate (measured quarterly) in 1950 to 1951 was over 15%, and exceeded in 1978 (16.7%) If lower tax rates reduce growth, then why is the highest growth found in a year with lower tax rates? Three of the top 5 years were in WW II ... 1942, +18.5%, 1941, +17.1%, 1943, +16.4% -- which skew a graph which conveniently starts in 1940. One m might note that the top bracket in the US was raised to 63% in 1932. Yet the "growth rates" under what you state to provablby be good for the economy in that year before the graph was -13.1%. And 1946 (end of WW II) saw a 10.9% contraction with your higher tax rates. This is not "political opposition" it is statistical opposition to a grossly misleading "graph." Cheers. Collect (talk) 17:02, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
Also the "job growth" figure is also substantially affected by the choice of 1940 -- guess what happens to employment during wars? Oh? Collect (talk) 17:05, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
If you start at 1945, the last bar of File:Employment growth by top tax rate.jpg goes down slightly rather than up slightly on the right, more closely reflecting File:LafferCurve.svg with which it shares the same outputs (job wages growth, economic growth, and tax revenue) and similar inputs (top tax bracket rate instead of tax rate.) File:Federal Income Tax Rates in the US, 2009.jpg helps explain an aspect of the relation. 207.224.47.134 (talk) 20:36, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
But that's exactly the point — why start at 1945? Why not 1919, at the end of WWI? Why not 1974, at the end of the Vietnam war? If one is showing a valid correlation between top end marginal tax rates and economic growth, it shouldn't matter where one "cuts the tape"... Why is 1945 sacred? Because that's the only date where a high correlation can be shown. The correlation is real for that brief interval of history, but ballyhooing this correlation implies a false causality. I'm not joking to have said a similar (albeit negative) correlation number could be generated comparing the number of television sets to economic growth rates, failed attempt a pirate graph above notwithstanding... Disclaimer: I'm a socialist and would like to see nothing better than a 70% marginal tax rate at about $1M of income, a shutting down of the massive "capital gains" loophole, etc. But I'd also sooner shove lima beans up my nose than try to make cheap, ephemeral political "points" by foisting dubious and tendentious graphs on the project to advance this personal set of values. Carrite (talk) 13:38, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
Would you like to see a series of such graphs with different ending and beginning years? A high correlation can be shown for most such graphs. Do you know of any reasons that [15] or [16] may be factually inaccurate? 75.166.195.241 (talk) 16:44, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
The links you cite are forums for political debate. I'm highly sympathetic to the cause of economic egalitarianism, but don't confuse the various "what should bes" of the world with Wikipedia's mission, which is to inform readers of what was and what is in a neutrally voiced and fairly delimited manner. Don't push agendas with tendentious graphs on WP; there is a time and a place for that, this isn't it. Carrite (talk) 22:37, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
Do you have any evidence that the original graph is biased or otherwise not strictly more accurate than any alternative graph on the same topic? 75.166.195.241 (talk) 23:56, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

D. Thompson (Nov. 20, 2012) "Rich People Who Don't Understand Taxes Should Be Told So" The Atlantic relates to this issue, as does L. French (Nov. 20, 2012) "Tax loopholes alone can't solve fiscal cliff" Politico. 207.224.47.134 (talk) 04:39, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

"Feed the poor. Eat the rich" ;) AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:05, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
R. Bolling (November 21, 2012) "Bill O'Reilly's Nightmare" Tom The Dancing Bug. 207.224.47.134 (talk) 17:31, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Jimbo, over the years I have appealed to you on many subjects. Perhaps you are wondering why I have not made a more direct appeal. Are you aware of the extent to which your administrators use censorship to suppress points of view they find uncomfortable without regard to the truth, and the extent to which administrators coddle those who litter racial and sexist epithets, denigrating the project? 75.166.195.241 (talk) 19:03, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Similar issue

Jimbo, I have noticed that there seems to be a similar effort to scrub the recent IMF report [17] from Fractional reserve banking, a subject of interest to bankers (the esteem in which the public holds the concept is of particular interest to bankers.) Would it surprise you to learn that some of the same senior editors and administrators are involved? 75.166.195.241 (talk) 00:04, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

There is a presentation on which anyone may comment pertinent to both of these issues. 75.166.195.241 (talk) 23:18, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

The Hairless Cat of ArbCom

The Hairless Cat of ArbCom
This hairless cat is standing on your computer, looking at a site a spam link here on WP got you to. Help ArbCom stop spam links! .:YellowPegasus:. (talk • contribs) 16:54, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
Here are some burrowing owls which may or may not be of greater interest to the cat. 75.166.195.241 (talk) 17:25, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure that all of this really adds much that's of relevance to the purpose of this page, but, since there's a fair amount of unused whitespace here, I must say I was fascinated to find out that such a thing as a Burrowing Owl does really exist! --Demiurge1000 (talk) 18:59, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Articles for Sale?

Hi, why are people allowed to take wikipedia articles and sell them for a profit? See here [18] Intoronto1125TalkContributions 18:11, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

It's ok. See our license. --Cyclopiatalk 18:16, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
See also User talk:Jimbo Wales/Archive 119#Books using Wikipedia articles, II (November 2012).
—Wavelength (talk) 18:17, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
This question (and other questions) can be answered at "User:Jimbo Wales/FAQ" (red link now) or "User talk:Jimbo Wales/FAQ" (red link now).
—Wavelength (talk) 18:23, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
I don't think its right that I spend countless hours here on a volunteer basis, while these people rip off articles by copying and pasting what I wrote and make a profit of it. Its ridiculous. Something needs to be done about this. Intoronto1125TalkContributions 18:24, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
If you don't like it, the only possible remedy is to stop contributing here. It's impossible for us to change the licensing condition. It's already a done deal. WilyD 18:32, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
For many editors, myself included, the very fact that people can freely re-use our content in this way is precisely why we contribute to Wikipedia in the first place. CIreland (talk) 20:45, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Some Laddu for you

Some Laddu for you
For your contributions to Wikimedia Community. :) RAT -.- Poke it 05:06, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Praise and issues with one article

Hey, Jimbo. I'm BattleshipMan. I enjoy this site. Some articles are interesting to read and I do some editing as best as possible.

One other thing, there is a clash of conflicting issues over the article 2012 in film. It's kind of hard for me to explain and I'll try to diplomatic as possible, but the argument of issues is about the number one box-office film links on that article. Some users, including two of them name User:Grapple X and User:Phil Bridger, are arguing about some possible bias of the list of number one box office movies in countries. They deleted the links of number one films in some countries, including United States and United Kingdom, and replace it with the link Lists of box office number-one films, which only lists countries number-1 box office movies in each listed country with different years and the US and UK number-one movies are very much at the bottom of the article of Lists of box office number-one films. They also removed the box-office table from US and Canada, UK and Australia and leave it as worldwide box-office number.

One of my initial disagreements is over them setting up that Lists of box office number-one films on the article 2012 in film is that a majority of readers would want to find out which box office films would be number in each country, including the US and UK. If they go to lists of number one films from the 2012 in film page, they would have to scroll down to the bottom of the list to the US and UK, which was arguably frustrate many users.

On two of the talk of sections of that page, Talk:2012 in film#World View and Talk:2012 in film#Worldwide view, which might help explain what I'm saying.

What I'm asking is to please help settle this disagreement and find a way to make readers happy regarding the situation I told you about. I know what I said maybe against some wikipedia policy and such. But this is something that should be dealt with.

Thank you and keep this site going well and keep it non-profit. God bless.

BattleshipMan. BattleshipMan (talk) 07:37, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Shocking deletionism

FYI, there's an entertaining story breaking:- Former OED editor covertly deleted thousand of words. It's not just Wikipedia that has trouble with editors deleting volunteer contributions... Warden (talk) 09:55, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Invented Kings, invented names, invented titles,

Good night Jimbo. Since 2010 y'm trying to correct distortions on History, here, on Wikipédia. I have done already a lot of noise and something is a little better than it was, in the past, but a lot of distorsions persist. Suported on minor historians or on minoritary historiographic currents, inventing a lot, many Wikipedias are editing Kings that haven't existed (they are currently seen, on History, as pretenders). This goes against the general rule «for extraordinary affirmations, extraordinary sources», but also appears invented names of nobles, and invented designations of royal figures. For example, in Genealogy it's current to put, with the name of someone, the name of his mother to better distinguish him from others with a similar name, like this: «Juan Nuñez de Haro (y Goya), but in a lot of Wikipédias what should appear would be «Juan Nuñez de Haro y Goya» (this isn't a real case but only a invented example). It´s also current to call, for example, a queen of Portugal, «Maria of Castile», because she was a princess of Castile that married a portuguese king, but we do not call her, or her sons, on History, of course, «Queen Mary of Portugal and Castile», or «Prince or Princess X of Portugal and Castile». When we want to say that someone belonged to several royal houses, we give that information separately, without any confusions with the name of the person. What can I do about this? Can I create a warning, in english, to put on the Wikipedias to alert to this? There is some entity on Meta or on the Wikimedia foundation to contact? I have already made a report on «vandalism reports on Meta», and I spoke about the problem with two or three functionaries of Wikimedia, and I also proposed (on "vandalism report") the creation of a international Wikipedia boarder of historians to help resolving such kind of problems. I´m a very ignorant wikipedian about rules and «computers», but I know that such a border could not force the Wikipedias to adopt this or that point of view, but, surely, such a border would be a great help in this kind of matters. Abraço, Jorge alo (talk) 23:07, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

I think a useful place for this discussion would be WP:ROYALTY and WP:NCROY. There you'll find enthusiasts interested in the same topic. I think what you'll find is that most English-speaking enthusiasts are highly knowledgeable about the British Royalty and naming conventions, but less so about Portuguese. I'm sure they will be interested to learn more, though!--Jimbo Wales (talk) 11:21, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
Okay, thanks, and I'm going to use your advice. Not immediately, but only because I can't (no time for the moment). A thing I have done already was to begin to invite historians to work on Wikipédia (the Wikipédia on portuguese is a little better and I think that there are, now, conditions for them to come, and another thing that I will do is to write, by my real «me or I», on specialized revues about some errors that I have found on Wikipédia. Obviously, my real «me or I» is not going to write against Wikipédia (and against my virtual «wikipedian me»), but against the errors and it's authors or sources. The problem, unfortunately, is not only about portuguese kings and names and titles, and a lot of other people, in many Wikipédias, is being proclaimed king against historiography, that says they weren't, or is given wrong names and titles. It's a «rebellion», against the most part of the historiography, of a genealogist current suported on some minor historians or minority currents (in general, bad or careless specialists). Abraço, Jorge alo (talk) 15:33, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Frederic Bourdin

Hello Jimbo and thank you for your good advice. I did everything the way you asked me to to things and now I am not blocked anymore and I did a "COI" request on my Frederic Bourdin talk page. I asked for a neutral administrator to review it. When you told me what to do to get done with all this fuss with Bbb23 you say that you would look at my "COI" request. So here it it Frederic Bourdin talk page. Thanks again.--Francparler (talk) 11:39, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Feedback tool abuse

A hearty hello and good morning to Jimbo, et al. There is a thread here which is currently getting lost amid other discussions at the Village Pump, and which I believe would benefit from a broader range of input. Evanh2008 (talk|contribs) 13:27, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

I'd like to learn more about this. Can you (or anyone, really) tell me where I can find a quick tutorial? For example, where can I see the 5 people who flagged the comment asking for more information about Barack Obama's family as "abuse"?--Jimbo Wales (talk) 15:48, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
The tutorial's at Wikipedia:Feedback walkthrough/2; it even uses Obama's article feedback as an example. Once you're looking at the feedback, "View Activity" shows the history of flags and such. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 15:51, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
The specific posts referenced at the VP can be viewed at Special:ArticleFeedbackv5/Barack_Obama/152186 and Special:ArticleFeedbackv5/Barack_Obama/166992. You need to click "View more actions" and "Show more activity" on the bottom right to see who flagged (or unflagged) the comments. MBisanz talk 15:54, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
Thank you both. I looked through it and it seems like the incorrect flagging is mostly being done by anons (I could find no examples at all of an incorrect flagging being done by a logged in user, but in any event if there are some, there are not many). This suggests a narrowly-focussed way forward, potentially, on this one issue: to have an easy way to get rid of incorrect flags by anon ip numbers.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 16:13, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

You got mail

Hi Jimbo,
I wrote you a mail and hope you got it. Greetings from Germany -- Achim Raschka (talk) 20:30, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Great, I did see it and should respond later today.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 09:05, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Note about notice

I would guess you're already aware of the situation, but thought I would drop you a note about the notice. - jc37 07:56, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Thank you.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 12:04, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

IMHO, ArbCom is in danger of seemingly being either an elementary school playground, or else an experiment in groupthink (which is fully as bad). (further short comments here) Collect (talk) 18:42, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

I guess the point may be reached where Jimbo realises that having this group "adjudicate" over their own political squabblings and machinations, in true Lord of the Flies fashion, with no recourse for the community to intervene other than "wait for an election", where, with apologies to Douglas Adams, we get to choose the "best" "lizard", is absurd, and hugely damaging to community spirit, and perception of the project. I also suspect that time won't be yet. It's not an easy problem to address, just look at all the failed attempts worldwide to build accountable methods of government. Still, that doesn't mean we shouldn't try.
I think I'm right in saying that ARBCOM is not supposed to be a kind of government, but I think it's also true that some of its members over the years, and some parts of the community believe that is or should be its role. The old truism probably applies, that anybody who wants to be elected to a position of power is, by that desire, unsuited. So maybe the problem is that it is a position of power, and thus politicised, to serve on arbcom. I don't have any solutions - just thinking aloud, prompted by the messy situation unfolding. Begoon talk 04:11, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

1000 DYK Medal

Greetings and Salutations, Jimbo:

Did you know that User: Dr Blofeld is about to pass this milestone? It deserves a suitable medal. Someone needs to design it, if they haven't already. A note from you to accompany the presentation would make it especially meaningful. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 20:02, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

You missed a trick there, 7&6. You should have opened with "Did you know that ..." - Sitush (talk) 20:04, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
You are so right. Corrected it per your suggestion. Thanks. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 20:06, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
Unlike some, I won't charge you for assistance in improvements etc ;) Sitush (talk) 20:16, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
You may ask.
I just think recognition for aGuinness world record worthy breaking performance in the ultramarathon of Wikipedia DYKing deserves recognition. It deserves a press release. Not to mention that he is a prodigious content creator. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 20:26, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
Category:Superlatives can include Category:Wikipedia superlatives.
—Wavelength (talk) 21:31, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
I wouldn't mind it being included on the front page as a "Did you know". I'm sure that's out of process and all that, but such is the point of WP:BOLD.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 09:04, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
Thank you. I've passed this on. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 18:19, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Concise wikipedia proposal

Made a proposal at here for a concise edition of wikipedia which is formatted much like an old book encyclopedia with the bare main facts and a smallish word limit for articles as a reference point. Can't imagine all would support, but any input from anybody would be warmly welcome. The idea is for a general reference which is consistently of similar short length and quality and providing the most important facts without having to scan huge articles to retrieve them as leads on articles are very inconsistent.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 20:45, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Is this not exactly what Qwiki already do?78.151.153.220 (talk) 20:53, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
No, Qwiki takes extracts usually from the beginning and end of articles and are usually stupidly constructed because its automated.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 21:03, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
Many articles suffer from a severe case of "Wikibloat". I would, moreover, suggest a tiered encyclopedia - with very broad topics at the top of a pyramid, with each having up to, say, a score of sub-articles closely related to the main topic. I also suggest that the length limit be aimed at about 3,000 to 6,000 words as being short enough to read, and long enough to convey most of the critical information. I would also note the "reading level" of current articles, in some cases, is over a grade level of 20 -- which I suggest is a symptom of "edits by committee." Lastly, I would try to ensure that "current events" (including "silly season" edits) do not wend their way into articles. IIRC, Qwiki is simply a "digest" of articles - if the original article is poor, so will the Qwiki version theeof. Collect (talk) 21:06, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
I called it "WP:Datahoarding". -Wikid77 06:01, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
If it's a way for hardcore deletionists to create something according to their strict "encyclopedicity" criteria, thus leaving WP alone, I wholeheartedly agree. Otherwise I don't see the point. --Cyclopiatalk 21:17, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
(But hey, if people want to do it, by all means do) --Cyclopiatalk 21:20, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
It is possible to publish all the articles in Wikipedia:Vital articles by using Wikipedia:Books. See also Wikipedia:Wikipedia CD Selection.
—Wavelength (talk) 21:27, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

I was thinking of literally like a virtual book format and a word limit of say 400-500 words per entry, but maybe as much as 3000 for articles on broad topics like countries etc. Wikibloat and uneven quality is a massive problem on wikipedia, if we could produce an outline of an encyclopedia which is well regulated with basic general summaries which is consistent this would be extremely valuable I think. Also proposed a scaling of the Geograph project to a global one♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 21:29, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Geograph Britain and Ireland is, in some aspects, similar to Google Street View.
—Wavelength (talk) 22:00, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
Potentially, yeah, almost. We have stacks of photos on tiny hamlets in the UK yet many notable towns and communities in the US still without images! That was my initial thought was a mechanism to generate interest in photographing places to help wikipedia as a resource.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 22:21, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
Invent a photo-based, crowd-sourced game: Perhaps create one of those crowd-sourced video games, such as a "Worldwide Town Warfare" game, which would require the combat player to upload 4 Flickr photos of a small town before it can be captured by the player! Remember that's how they refined those old book photoscans, by treating any marred, blurry phrase as a 2nd captcha question, to use the opinion of each person who correctly matched the first captcha phrase. -Wikid77 (talk) 06:01, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
You could use a micropædia/macropædia breakdown, like Brittanica does, but with a greater emphasis on the micro, obviously - brief articles for most topics, and then in-depth coverage of a few major topics. — Francophonie&Androphilie (Je vous invite à me parler) 23:56, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Summarize top 1000 articles, with prior as Xxxx (detailed): To balance a micropædia/macropædia approach, with intense reader interest, I suggest to rewrite each of the top 1000 articles (major nations, famous people, hot topics, sex terms). Each rewritten version would have perhaps 15 paragraphs (+photos), then rename the prior, massive revision as "<article_name> (detailed)" to be linked in a top hatnote. As the smaller versions are expanded by interested readers, or questioned on each talk-page, then the scope of articles could be shifted to reflect what the readers have been noting as important (or less so). Also, it is easier to focus on rewriting "just" 1,000 articles, because summarizing the top "80,000" articles would become a nightmare before better understanding what readers want in articles. -Wikid77 06:01, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
Yeah a Micropaedia approach within wikipedia it self would be a good thing. I think we'd probably be better putting all our eggs into one this encyclopedia but having the most important facts and articles consistently concise and above all easy to digest is a major problem on here..♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 11:41, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
Should we be posting this to Village pump - Proposals too? TheOriginalSoni (talk) 15:26, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
There may not be perfect overlap but this sounds similar to Simple English in some respects, so you might want those people involved. Also with "two versions" of the same article, you are asking for twice the disputes and perhaps POV Forks, so will you get two less than good articles, just one shorter than the other?Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:23, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Support per Cyclopia and Blofeld. It is clear that we do have different expectations of what the articles are supposed to accomplish, with some of us indeed seeing them appropriately as a limitless hoard of all the information that can be referenced, in keeping with the "sum of all human knowledge available to everyone" motto. It is also valid to develop some concise set of extracts for those who want a brief survey of the most important points about a topic. While such "retail" (consumer-oriented) activities should be subordinate to the "industrial" (production-oriented) aspect of gathering everything about the topic together in the first place, there is no reason why Wikimedia shouldn't subsidize them as a very important outreach activity, since their goal is neutral and educational. Wnt (talk) 16:49, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
If you support it, post here on metawiki. Will post at village pump for anybody who doesn't watch Jimmy's page.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 20:19, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

"Meet the editors" blog post

Jimbo, I know that Wikipediocracy is not a site that you hold in high regard, but I wanted to draw your attention to a blog post that I wrote there. In it, I profile a Wikipedia editor who has self-identified as a pedophile and makes a fairly clear statement about their intentions on Wikipedia. I haven't had much success getting ARBCOM to act on similar reports in the past, so I thought I would see if this route worked any better. It has been up for almost a week now. I know Wikipedia editors have read it. The result so far? An anon IP editor alerted the user, who simply deleted the note and carried on editing. Are we really this blasé about pedophilia activism now? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 00:27, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

I've always been under the impression that pedophiles are to be banned on sight. I've reported a couple people over the years and they were silently blocked in short order. No longer the case? It certainly should be. Also, I don't know if it's logistical but if someone self identifies as a pedo we should be forwarding that information to their local police jurisdictions, imho. Even if they've done nothing illegal it might still be beneficial for law enforcement to be aware of the situation. Sædontalk 05:25, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
There used to be a board you could go to for this very thing, where you could just make the report and allow those with experiance to look into the matter.--Amadscientist (talk) 06:55, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
Now isn't that strange that a few trolls from the Arbitration Committee supported banning Malleus, but none seems to be interested in dealing with a self-identified pedophile. 67.169.11.52 (talk) 21:01, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
Well if ARBCOM is no longer blocking these people then we need to start taking it to a more public venue, like AN. If we have a self-identified pedophile then hopefully an admin there would take the initiative. Sædontalk 21:41, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

User:For An Angel has made a comment on my blog post, which says in part: "And if someone wants to ban me from Wikipedia because of what you wrote about me here I think they will see that the vast majority of my edits have been helpful and that I’m not doing anything wrong". I can only assume that they are right, since no admin has blocked them. I thought that having an editor who self-identified as pro-pedophilia and a "girllover" would be more of an issue. I guess no one else has a problem knowing that this is one of the most active editors of articles about young female actors and kids television shows. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 06:14, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Not to decipher anything from what anyone says, but For an Angel's comment definitely sounds like he does not disagree with either fact that he is a pedophile, nor that he is the same as the other account TheOriginalSoni (talk) 15:35, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
But I do disagree with Delicious carbuncle's accusations. I have never "self-identified as pro-pedophilia" or participated in propedophilia activism on Wikipedia or anywhere else. I hope that no admin would ban a user based on one person's false accusations. For An Angel (talk) 01:14, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
For An Angel, User:Metropolitan90 has deleted your userpage, apparently at your request. I have informed them of this discussion. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 04:05, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
For An Angel blanked both User:For An Angel and User:For An Angel/Wikipedia and tagged them with {{db-author}}. Normally, such a request is granted if indeed the requester is the sole author, per WP:CSD#G7. In addition, the user could have requested deletion of those pages per WP:CSD#U1 (user request to delete pages in their own userspace). I didn't review any of the prior versions of the pages before deleting them; I just checked the edit history to confirm that the requester was the sole author, and applied WP:CSD#U1 to delete the pages anyway. Until Delicious carbuncle informed me of this discussion, I was unaware of the past content of these userpages. If it is appropriate for the page to be restored under Wikipedia policy and guidelines (I don't know whether it is or isn't), any admin may do so. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:32, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
That sounds very reasonable. Now that you are aware of the situation, why don't you take a look at the content of that userpage as described in my blog post? And the content of User:Ospinad? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 04:44, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
I don't want to cover up the former content of For An Angel's pages from those who need to know what it was, but on the other hand I don't want to bring those pages back which would seem to endorse their presence on Wikipedia in their own right. So it's kind of a dilemma. Please leave me out of this issue; I have already authorized any other admin to restore these pages if necessary. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:54, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
I will put you on the list as declining to block For An Angel, but don't be concerned - I'm sure many admins have seen this thread and not acted. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 17:02, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
Delicious: What "list"? You never asked me to block him. In fact, you asked me to restore two of his userpages. If you post anything on any other web site accusing me of failing to block For An Angel, I will pursue appropriate remedies against you. If you want For An Angel blocked, and he may well deserve to be blocked, go to an administrator noticeboard like WP:ANI and make your case there. Jimbo's user talk page is not the appropriate place to pursue this. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 18:18, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
Metropolitan90, Jimbo's talk page is one of the most widely read pages on Wikipedia and I am sure that this thread has been read by many many people, including admins. I would have emailed ARBCOM with this information, but my experiences going that route have been mixed. Since For An Angel's pages have been deleted, I am limited in what I can say here, but the blog post that I made over a week ago makes the case very clearly and is easy enough for anyone with access to deleted pages to confirm. If you need to be asked to block For An Angel, consider this my request. Incidentally, what would the "appropriate remedies" be for stating that you declined to block this user? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 18:38, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

IIRC it was Elen who blocked the previous pedos I reported, maybe drop her a note? Sædontalk 20:57, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Problem solving

Hello Mr Wales,

May be stupidly but Can you help please? --Esc2003 (talk) 23:30, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Maybe. Certainly it is funny and unnecessary as a Steward is already involved in the case. --E4024 (talk) 12:17, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
E4024 insanların sinirlerinin gerildiği bu türde bir konuya gülmeni ayıplıyorum. Çok ayıp.--İncelemeelemani (talk) 19:26, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
The post above you quickly dismissed is hardly funny nor is it unnecessary. Stewards have been consistently ignoring the issue since July and people have been more than frustrated. So far only one steward have shown interest recently (yesterday) and an extra pair of eyes or ten is more than welcome on the problem. The RfC discusses the issues in greater detail. -- A Certain White Cat chi? 12:54, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
I think, it's not funny and unnecessary. There's an admin oligarchy on Turkish Wikipedia. It can be useful when you take a look on meta. --Cemallamec (talk) 18:13, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
Looks like there's a consensus forming that it's not funny, so it's just as well I resisted the temptation to quip that "I see it's not only the English Wikipedia where admins receive abuse". --Demiurge1000 (talk) 20:16, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Dangerous situation in Turkish Wikipedia

  • Hi Jimbo Wales. I want to report which is occured in Turkish Wikipedia. In July 2012 5 administrators that called "Memorandum of the Quintet" (Vito Genovese, tr:Kullanıcı:Eldarion, Mskyrider, Kibele, and Elmacenderesi) blocked 4 users (Seksen iki yüz kırk beş, Bermanya, Rapsar, Stultiwikia). Community of Turkish Wikipedia (including me and a few administrators) against this action and they opened Rfc. Almost everyone support that this blockings are unfair. Also community wanted that "Removing administrator rights (Wikipedia:Requests for de-adminship) will be introduced to Turkish Wikipedia", "built Arbitration Committee" and "Vote of Confidence". These proposals were accepted by community however stewards did nothing. Also in this process, a few users blocked because of their comments. Their comments didn't contain profanity or insult they contained only criticism. Then yesterday, I applied one of the community's decisions which is about unblocking 4 users. Then Kibele reblock these 4 users and then Vito Genovese blocked me because of abuse of administration rights. Then many users againsted this action and they blocked, too. Probably they continue this. Please help Turkish Wikipedia community the situation is very dangereous. For months, Turkish Wikipedia wasn't develop even they decrease. Best regards and good afternoon.--Reality 17:33, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
Note: m:Requests for comment/Sysop abuse on the Turkish Wikipedia--Reality 17:34, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
I think Turkish Wikipedia is suffering an adaptation of McCarthyism where we see hidden discussion among sysops/admins that determine exactly what will happen to who.
  • Admins can privately discuss and ban a user (with no block history) without a single shred of evidence or warning.
  • Same admins can then also block three users (two indefinitely, one for six months) objecting to this ban and insist on enforcing this ban.
  • All this is despite the level of objection present on the meta RFC mentioned above which tr.wikipedia sysops did not bother to participate.
-- A Certain White Cat chi? 17:51, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Do you consider image and template pages to be content?

Fawn, bow, crawl, ingratiate.... "I am not worthy." - "Please grant this humble editor an audience."

But seriously, do you think image and template pages should be categorised alongside article pages? For example:

I consider images and templates to be the building blocks of articles. The Reader likes to read articles and likes to find articles in uncluttered categories so the stuff of no or little interest to them should be elsewhere. There are no clear guidelines on this issue and the unwritten convention, especially in the popular and fashionable side of Wikipedia, shows that images and templates not mixed in with content pages. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 01:07, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Whatever the unwritten convention may be, you have tried to get a written convention instead, and this backfired: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Categories/Archive 3#Image categorisation ended in July 2012 with the conclusion that "the discussion establishes consensus that image files - at least those that are hosted on Wikipedia - should be categorized on Wikipedia. " Note also that on e.g. Category:Obama family, the files are grouped separately from the articles, so they don't clutter the category, they add value without interfering with the articles. See also Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive242#Request to lift a topic ban for background. Fram (talk) 08:16, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
For what it is worth, I think there are good reasons to avoid having categories that mix articles, templates, images, wikiprojects indiscriminately. One reason is that many people are interested in using the data in our categories to do useful things, and having those things all mixed together isn't helpful. There is a reason why category pages have an editable text section at the top: this is often the right place to add links to (for example) wikiprojects. Fram is right to cite Category:Obama family as a good example of the right way to do it for media files.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 09:26, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
The mentioned WikiProject is actually on the talkpage of the category which is the common way of projects to signify their interest in a particular category, stopping that would be a blow against collaborative editing. The Category:Obama family category refered to as a positive way shows that the software makes that distintion, so there is no need to worry about having images and articles mixed together. Agathoclea (talk) 13:28, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Do these pages need the NOINDEX tag?

Maybe its me but I'm not seeing the benefit of NOINDEXing Jimbo's user page or this talk page. The tag on this talk page was added way back in 2011 [19] and the tag on his user page was added a few months ago by an IP. None of these edits were discussed. I don't know about anyone else, but I don't think we should hide these pages from search engines. As the founder of Wikipedia, Jimbo's user page and talk should be open and accessible to those who want to find him. What is a good rationale for NOINDEXING these pages? ThemFromSpace 01:36, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I was surprised to see the NOINDEX tag. I don't think it is a biggie so it is should be up to Jimbo to decide. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 01:43, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
User talk pages on the English Wikipedia are not indexed by search engines unless the {{index}} tag or __INDEX__ magic word is added to them. Graham87 06:05, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
I don't have a strong opinion here, but I think there's no good reason to treat my user talk page as different from anyone else's. Nearly anyone who would think to look for it in the first place, would know how to find it.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 09:29, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
Would you be fine reindexing your user page and keeping this talk page unindexed, per the status quo? ThemFromSpace 18:35, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Beware NOINDEX might not work any longer: There has been recent discussion at wp:PUMPTECH on how the _NOINDEX_ (double-underbar) tag does not stop Google Search (or others?) from indexing a page, as in prior years. I did, in fact, confirm the shocking non-operation, weeks ago, that _NOINDEX_ was "broken" and could not be used to stop a page from indexing search phrases for Google Search. Currently, it seems that this talk-page is properly noindex'ed, containing the internal HTML tag:
<meta name="robots" content="noindex,follow" />
The keyword "noindex" is seen by Google, and so this talk-page does not match within Google Search. Adequate current index testing, for both articles and talk-pages, could consume 1-to-3 hours, so I did not retest article indexing recently. Also, WP's own internal wikisearch (the right-side "Search [___]" box) temporarily stopped re-indexing articles circa 04:00, 23 November 2012, for several days as it has delayed re-indexing in the past. Hence, just consider all search-options as iffy, questionable features during recent months. Meanwhile, people are investigating, and working on numerous other improvements as well. Also, we have asked them to slow down to a pace to have more-predictable updates. So, the chaos in operations is being discussed. -Wikid77 (talk) 16:46/17:50, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=9497

Seriously. 5 years the most popular free-licensed lossless filetype has been unusable for large images. Thousands of files on Commons are affected; and, since this means people are required to upload lossy file formats instead of lossless, every day it's unfixed damages Commons' ability to act as an archival file source.

This is ridiculous, and shows basic incompetence, that basic functions that Commons requires to be minimally functional - the ability to show its files - can get broken over 5 years ago, and still not be fixed. Adam Cuerden (talk) 10:42, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Invitation/plea

Greetings Mr. Wales. I wanted to post a link for you, and ask that you consider posting a sub-page to what I believe is a good questionnaire to help determine how this site ought to regard incivility. Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Civility enforcement/Questionnaire Obviously your input would be a valuable resource to include. I hope that you will! Sincerely, My76Strat (talk) 11:54, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Anent this, and partly as a result thereof, I wrote WP:Honour for which I invite comments. The whole amount of debate about "civility" I find to have parallels in other areas of Wikipedia. Collect (talk) 15:04, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Also consider Eternal September effect and societal norms: To my recent surprise, I have been finding occasional snippy (or snarky) comments from many experienced editors, or admins, who have also been quite helpful to others. Hence, a tinge of rudeness should be expected, everywhere. I guess newer rudeness could be attributed to the 1993 "Eternal September effect" where many crass, unruly newcomers have caused disruptive, or hateful, remarks to be considered acceptable, commonplace cybersphere actions. However, societies at large tend to contain large segments of abrupt, pushy ruffians, aiming towards open hostility. When I was developing some of the first computer email systems, I did not anticipate there would be, years later, the phrase "hatemail" as a commonplace term, but I suspect that shows how common the hostile attitudes have been for years. I advise to just take the high road, listen to advice from Jimbo, "don't feed the trolls" and try to respond with a quick reply that defuses any challenge in hostile comments, but also implies how further remarks will be ignored (not falling into baited anger). -Wikid77 (talk) 17:19, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Appointer

The above aside, that this is November seems a bit of a kicking of the can down the road. What if this had been February?

My understanding is that, while you have slowly been distancing yourself from the responsibilities some, you (JW) still retain the ability to disband arbcom at your discretion at need, and also can remove individual arbitrators at need, just as you are who appoints them. Per my original notice above, and your note that you follow things on the mail list, I would guess you have been following this.

What is your assessment? All week, I have been repeatedly mentally reminded of the situations with zscout and others, where removal happened while the situation was being considered. Is this something you have considered at all during this? - jc37 04:52, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

I'll donate, but please can these happen first?

Dear Jimbo / WMF / anyone who can help:

1. If an op can bring a linkbot into the #wikipedia-en channel, I will donate $25 upon successfully testing said linkbot in said channel. #wikipedia-de gets to have a linkbot, so why must we miss out?

2. If you speak at the Kansas State University Landon Lecture series on or before Valentine's Day, I will donate a further $200 to the Foundation. However, if it takes place later in the spring semester, I will donate $100.

I have found Wikipedia indispensable all throughout the years so I hope all these can be done if you would like my help.

Thanks kindly, --129.130.37.150 (talk) 05:16, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

  • Umm... perhaps I'm wrong, but I don't think it's appropriate to ask Wikipedia to do something for you--particularly your second request--in exchange for donation money. Greengreengreenred 05:33, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
    • [citation needed]. --129.130.37.150 (talk) 05:43, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
      • Because it's undignified, rude and pretentious. — raekyt 05:48, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
      • To that, [citation needed] as well. --70.179.167.78 (talk) 06:33, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
      • It is true--well, as far as I know, it's true--that there isn't a Wikipedia policy about this specific request (though I have not read through all of the policies, so I may be wrong). However, not being in the Wikipedia policies does not make something appropriate for Wikipedia. It's wonderful that Wikipedia has been indispensable for you, and I'm sure it would be cool if Jimbo came to your college's lecture thing, but, IMO, it's not appropriate to have strings attached to donation money. The only thing Wikipedia should do for those who donate money is the same as what it does to everyone: provide the public with notable, informative, encyclopedic articles, free for anyone to edit. Wikipedia shouldn't have to come to the Landon Lecture Series in order to raise the money it needs to survive. Greengreengreenred 08:20, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
  • See WP:Bounty board to post your proposals! This is acceptable behavior from donors. Any method that gets Wikipedia donations and doesn't involve giving up POV or having editors with a financial conflict of interest about a specific topic should be OK, as far as I know. Wnt (talk) 20:24, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

As cost-effective as it might seem for me to spend my time flying around the world to pass "GO" and collect $200, I fear that I'm not available before Valentine's Day to come to Kansas.  :-) --Jimbo Wales (talk) 09:32, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Whenever you do get around to coming to lecture in Kansas, as anywhere else, you could, at least in theory, ask for the audience to pass out donations while your assistants pass around collection buckets as many fundraisers around the world do quite often. In this way, you would make the WMF way more in each lecture than the $100-$200 originally pledged. And during that donation solicitation portion of the lecture, a screen behind you could show: "You may also make donations from your phone at http://m.wikimedia.org/donate (or the actual mobile URL that receives donations.) This is an idea I share that may save WP and the WMF, so good luck and hope it all works out! =) --70.179.167.78 (talk) 11:08, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
I think most of us have the impression that all we have to do is load the harpoon in the backyard ballista and wait a few months until Jimbo flies overhead. This also works for Santa Claus. Wnt (talk) 20:28, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

I don't think Jimbo would do it anyways because it probably costs more to go to Kansas than the donation is. He probably might do it if someone offered a $100,000 or even a $1,000,000.—cyberpower ChatOnline 20:37, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Indeed.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 01:15, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
Yup. I don't believe in bribery either - but if you pay me enough, I'm sure my beliefs will change... ;-) Just kidding - I'm sure that Jimbo would like to visit Kansas sometime, though maybe not during the tornado season. It may not be a priority though - and he seems to prefer to spend most of his time at the moment in sunny (what? ROFL...) England at the moment, and any bribes/inducements will at least have to cover a two-way Atlantic crossing, just to break even. AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:44, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
Jimbo can come round to my house and mow the lawn at the weekend, and I might consider donating some money to Wikipedia if he does the job properly.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 14:57, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
If anything, it should by lawn. I need the extra help for the community driven efforts to mow my lawn.—cyberpower ChatOnline 17:15, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
If Jimbo gives me $5,000, I will gladly donate $10 to the Wikimedia foundation. Sounds like a good deal to me. Greengreengreenred 08:29, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

neutrality of Breast cancer awareness

I'd like to call attention to the article Breast cancer awareness. I'm concerned that there are major neutrality problems with this article, specifically that it advances a viewpoint that the most well-known elements of the Breast Cancer Awareness movement (such as the Susan G. Komen foundation) promote a kind of falsely-cheerful type of activism that hurts patients. This is a point of view that has been advanced by some serious people (Barbara Ehrenreich for instance) but in this article it is given undue weight and claims made by these detractors are treated as fact. Given that this movement enjoys widespread popular support, the lack of balance is quite striking. The following are examples of problems that I see:

  • The article makes sweeping generalizations and states them as facts, rather than as opinions. For instance: "Mainstream pink ribbon culture is also trivializing, silencing, and infantilizing (Sulik 2010, page 98)." Sulik may conclude that it is, but I doubt so many people would contribute money and time to these organizations if they agreed.
  • The article gives massive weight to critics of this movement and comparably little weight to proponents. The section on the social role of the breast cancer movement, which discusses the negative effects that the movement has on survivors is 12 paragraphs long, and placed above the section on the achievements of the movement, which is seven paragraphs long. Following this is a five-paragraph section titled "Risks of too much awareness" and then a five-paragraph critical section titled "Independence of breast cancer organizations" and then a four-paragraph section that starts by accusing major foundations of ignoring possible environmental causes of breast cancer. Following this is a three-paragraph section called "Dissent through art"
  • When summing up organizations or elements of the breast cancer awareness movement, the article takes a dismissive tone. For instance, the last paragraph of the section "Events" says this:

"Mere symbolism itself does not prevent cancer, improve treatments, or save lives. However, it is an effective form of promoting the pink ribbon culture: fear of breast cancer, the hope for a scientific breakthrough, and the goodness of the people who support the cause. These supporters may feel socially compelled to participate, in a type of "obligatory voluntarism" that critics say is "exploitative"

This portrays participants in awareness events as both self-satisfied and exploited and engaged in meaningless work. It also takes a much harsher tack than the cited source: it ignores benefits of these events that the cited source points out just one paragraph earlier - that they enable breast cancer patients to meet others in the same predicament and to feel comfortable receiving advice and support. It also changes the source's tone by suggesting that this movement IS exploitative when the source says it "can be".
  • The article takes constructs from social science research and presents them as facts. For instance: "Breast cancer culture values and honors suffering, selecting its she-roes by a "misery quotient" (Sulik 2010, page 319)". Is this "misery quotient" a term universally excepted in social science research, or is it something that Sulik came up with?
  • The article talk page includes an FAQ titled "Why is this article so critical" that suggests to editors that changes are unwelcome.

I think this article would benefit strongly from a fresh perspective and I encourage you to take a look. GabrielF (talk) 20:25, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

It certainly can use extensive discussion from editors on the article's talkpage - which those exact same issues have already been subject to. WP:CONSENSUS can change. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 21:32, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Is this WP:OUTING?

WP:DENY Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 19:50, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

As it's vaguely pertinent to the ongoing arb election, do you Jimbo agree that knowing an editor's first name and their country of residence (or more accurately, surmising it from a Wikipedia account name and residence userbox), is a sufficient amount of personally identifying information that it can be hidden from the community, under the justification of WP:OUTNIG?

I only ask because this is what arbitrator Elen of the Roads seems to believe, and she and others are running around blocking and reverting whistleblowers. The person she is protecting had dumped that account and resumed editting with a new one, in an area where several other editors with similar bahavioural records have started to be topic banned under discretionary sanctions, or retired having seen the writing on the wall (only after many years I might add).

I find it strange that Elen would take such an aggressive approach to a completely implausible risk of outing (and use blocks and threats to suppress even the very mention that she's doing it), at the cost of witholding vital information to WP:AE admins and allowing this user to be examined by AE in the same way his colleagues have, ie with the full behavioural record known and examinable in reference to the others (for obvious reasons).

Thanks to Elen, this user has effectively whitewashed a huge chunk of ther past history. She's given various excuses for this error, probably because at heart she knows she's made a mistake by possibly taking someone else at their word that this user's old account was an OUTing risk, and not investigating the issues for herself. She has previously stated it's all right because he was under no active sanctions at the time of the switch, which is I am sure you can appreciate, totally irrelevent when it comes to reviewing long term patterns of behaviour in a venue like AE.

It's strange because apparently she is the same person who seemed to have no qualms about passing on information posted to a mailing list. Everywhere I go I see people singing her praises and claiming she's the salt of the Earth and would never do a thing wrong. If only she allowed the facts about this case to be known. Perhaps you, Jimbo, are the only person with sufficient gravitas to get a proper explanation from her as to why she's doing this, without being subjected to a block and having your complaints censored. KLP479 (talk) 20:14, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Worth noting that this is the first and probably the last post by this account - clearly a sockpuppet. Prioryman (talk) 22:03, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
KLP479, if there is any whisteblowing of substance, it'd be best to email me privately, including diffs and actual proofs. Vague allegations posted by a sockpuppet account aren't really easily actionable. From what you've said so far, I'm not that impressed. (By the way, I have no idea what you are talking about).--Jimbo Wales (talk) 09:21, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
I'm afraid diffs wouldn't make much sense in this situation, due to how it's evolved (over many years) with much of what is said in public now being pretty much cryptic to observers who don't know the full story. The pertinent facts about it are as follows:
  • User A was active in a contorversial area for many years
  • Having collected a few blocks, User A 'retires' and stops editting
  • User B appears, and resumes the same behaviour as A
  • It become obvious to some that A=B
  • B is asked to publicly link his new account to his old one, as policy demands
  • He refuses
  • There's lots of dispute at ANI etc
  • As it turns out, the fact that A's account name contained his real first name and he'd put a home country userbox on his user page, he apparently realises with the help of some off-wiki communication with User:Alison, that he can claim that he made the switch to protect his identity (basically the only way such a switch can be legitimately hidden from the community)
  • B settles on this as his justification for not linking the two, although it's clear to those who care from his earlier statements that this never was his initial motive, and they know full well that a first name and country does not remotely represent an actual risk of OUTing
  • There remains no acknowledgement from B that he was A
  • Admins at places like ANI just do nothing whenever its mentioned, simply on the basis that Alison occasionally unretires to repeat the OUTING claim and also perhaps because the topic is so controversial they're just conditioned to ignoring the whole thing whenever it comes up. Alison never of course states what actual data this is based on - a simple first name and country of residence), so a cycle develops where anyone new to it either loses interest due to the complexity of even explaining what happened, or otherwise just takes Alison at her word
  • Other editors who behave the same way as A, but have never benefitted from this type of history whitewashing, after so many years of subtle gaming and POV pushing inevitably eventually come to the notice of admins who work AE (the topic in question having been the subject of discretionary sanctions for many years), and start to receive topic bans, or retire having seen the writing on the wall for their preferred style of editting
  • B continues to pretend he has no prior account (and thus in comparison after a few years as 'B' and haivg learnt how to avoid obvious blocks, now looks like an account in good standing) even to the point of trying to assist his colleagues at AE who were never able to whitewash their history in the same way. To anyone who knows that A was B however, the deception this represents is clear given that they remained interested in the same topic and thus articles and disputes
  • I made my latest attempt to highlight this deception once I saw B at AE, and this is when Elen got involved and basically covered the link up with blocks and intimidation
  • As far as I can gather, Elen has either taken Alison's claim there's an OUTINg risk as read, or worse, she's taken B's word for it, or she just doesn't care and wants to continue to protect B for reasons other than OUTing while maintaining OUTing as the publicly stated reason because it's the only one that fits any actual polcicy (she for example once said that he has no need to link the two as he was not blocked or under sanctions at the time of the switch, which is of course categorically not what the relevant policy says about it)
  • Having noticed what she's done with the mailing list and seeing everyone paint her in a saintly light, I decided to have one more try at having this error rectified by posting here
At the end of the day, all you need to do to act on this complaint is just ask Elen if she recalls this dispute. If she says yes, then ask her why she's protecting B when the information contained on A is clearly not an OUTing risk. If she says no, then I can email you the actual account names of A and B to see if she recalls. Such is the abuse it represents, I'd put money on this being overturned and the accounts being linked per policy if anyone ever actually interrogated her about it, but of course given her position that's been practically impossible for ordinary editors (and as I'm sure you know and Prioryman has so intellectually shown, "SOCK"s can do absolutly nothing on Wikipedia at all, even if they're trying to expose a major major scandal, rather than just a mid-level abuse like this). KLP479 (talk) 19:15, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
This A and B stuff is utterly worthless. Either e-mail Jimbo as requested or spill it here. Tarc (talk) 20:02, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
Wouldn't that leave him open to accusations of WP:OUTING himself? Ken Arromdee (talk) 20:36, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
Emailing me, or ArbCom, with concerns of this nature, naming names, is not WP:OUTING.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 01:22, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Count_Iblis/WikiLeaks  :) Count Iblis (talk) 22:59, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Iblis, I'm damn fine sure the sock isn't Brews Ohare Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:56, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
I know, but the issue of whisleblowers came up a few times in this discussion... :) . Count Iblis (talk) 02:23, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Jimbo, now she's here it's time for Elen to answer some direct questions, and these clearly can only come in response to queries from yourself. She's aware of the account names, and nobody else can do anything about this, clearly. Either she has verified for herself that the user's claimed fears were warranted and met the requirements of WP:OUTING and so permitted an undeclared account change in a controversial topic area, or she can't. Either the decisions she's made in this case can be verified by a trusted person like yourself, or they can't. It's that simple. It's really tiresome to see her continually avoid direct questions about this - let's be clear, her failure to show otherwise not withstanding, the only 'harassment' this user has suffered, has been protests like this at appropriate venues like AE or ANI or, as pointless as it was, her own talk page. She's frankly abusing her position to make personal decisions about what individual users can and can't do, with zero oversight, and whether this goes against concrete policy or not. And in the middle of an election no less. KLP479 (talk) 01:01, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
  • PS, if Elen is really concerned about protecting B's identity, why is she going one step further than me and actually naming B on a public page quite easily findable from here? Why is she busying herself with SPI's on me, rather than putting this to bed once and for all and simply proving to someone like Jimbo that A/B's fears about OUTING are remotely justified and that his switch can be backed by policy. The reality is, it isn't, and in fact she's done very little to prevent people connecting B to A since she got involved. It's time she gave an honest appraisal as to why this is. It's time she was fair to the people at AE and the people in the topic area who suffer when A's relevant behavioural history is concealed in this manner while he edits and posts as 'B'. KLP479 (talk) 01:31, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
  • KLP479 has been indeffed as a puppet of Hackneyhound.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:54, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Sad news

Hello Jimbo, per this notification on AN, an upstanding admin passed away. Thought you should know personally. --64.85.220.49 (talk) 14:42, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

AN Notice

Hi Jimbo, this is just a notice that you (and your talk page) have been mentioned in this AN discussion. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:54, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

I've also tangentially referenced this talk page in an ANI thread on user conduct in the above AN thread. This is a courtesy notice since I mentioned you; please don't feel obliged to respond. — Francophonie&Androphilie (Je vous invite à me parler) 01:41, 2 December 2012 (UTC) Amended 01:58, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Open letter from eigentümlich frei

I just wanted to check whether you had received a copy of this bilingual open letter to you from the German publication eigentümlich frei. The publications, eigentümlich frei and/or Preußische Allgemeine Zeitung, which have been described as belonging to the New Right, have (as I understand it) accused Wikipedia of manipulation (and possibly deliberate defamation).

See also http://eifrei.de/wikipedia-manipulationen/dokumentation/ and http://www.preussische-allgemeine.de/nachrichten/artikel/gezielte-diffamierung.html

This German article describing deliberate introduction of false information into Wikipedia may also be of interest: http://www.ef-magazin.de/2012/11/13/3832-zur-auseinandersetzung-mit-wikipedia-der-einzelne-und-der-schwarm

The current campaign in Germany may have an effect on the English article about the Preußische Allgemeine Zeitung; so more eyes there might also be useful, to check that the article presents differing views neutrally and with due weight. There does not appear to be an English article on eigentümlich frei (as yet).

--Boson (talk) 23:37, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

For reference, this was also covered in the Kurier (the German Wikipedia's equivalent of The Signpost) a few weeks ago: "Der Name ist der Reaktion (!) bekannt". Andreas JN466 00:20, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Issues with article 2012 in film

Hey, Jimmy. I hope all is well for you

I hope you don't mind. I revived my message from the archives

I can probably use your help on this situation.

There is a clash of conflicting issues over the article 2012 in film. It's kind of hard for me to explain and I'll try to diplomatic as possible, but the argument of issues is about the number one box-office film links on that article. Some users, including two of them name User:Grapple X and User:Phil Bridger, are arguing about some possible bias of the list of number one box office movies in countries. They deleted the links of number one films in some countries, including United States and United Kingdom, and replace it with the link Lists of box office number-one films, which only lists countries number-1 box office movies in each listed country with different years and the US and UK number-one movies are very much at the bottom of the article of Lists of box office number-one films. They also removed the box-office table from US and Canada, UK and Australia and leave it as worldwide box-office number.

One of my initial disagreements is over them setting up that Lists of box office number-one films on the article 2012 in film is that a majority of readers would want to find out which box office films would be number in each country, including the US and UK. If they go to lists of number one films from the 2012 in film page, they would have to scroll down to the bottom of the list to the US and UK, which was arguably frustrate many users.

On two of the talk of sections of that page, World View and Worldwide view, which might help explain what I'm saying.

What I'm asking is to please help settle this disagreement and find a way to make readers happy regarding the situation I told you about. I know what I said maybe against some wikipedia policy and such. But this is something that needs be dealt with.

Thank you and keep this site going well and keep it non-profit. God bless.

BattleshipMan (talk) 16:50, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Proposal

Hello, Jimbo!

I have a proposal for the Wikimedia Foundation and, in particular, for you. It consists in joining a wiki to Wikimedia.

The name of this wiki is WikiFocus. Creator of the wiki is Vladimir Medeyko, director of the Russian division of the Foundation. The purpose of the wiki is to describe everything related to Wiki technology (wikis and their members, wiki softwares and their capabilities).

Meta-Wiki also describes wikis, but only belonging to the Wikimedia Foundation and not really for informational purposes. And there is not articles about users at all.

The wiki's URL is http://wikifocus.org/. So far it is available only in Russian language, but if you agree to make the project a part of the Wikimedia Foundation, we will try to organize the English and possibly some more language versions.

I hope you will discuss the proposals with the rest working in the Wikimedia Foundation and your decision will be positive. Thank you! --Maxtirdatov (talk) 19:07, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Hello Jimbo!

Probably it's a bit early to discuss a formal status of the project, because we still have only 453 articles in Russian and 8 articles in Ukrainian yet, while English articles are only planned. But in the future, I think, our initiative might be quite interesting for the WMF, because we wish to describe history, technologies and the driving force of the Wikimedia Movement - its volunteers and officers. We're trying to write articles from a close to acadimic neutral and accurate point of view. It's a long way to go, but I'm sure, it's a fruitful and interesting project.

However, I'm ready to relinquish control of the project to the WMF (provided that the community of the project agree) anytime.

What do you think in general? Dr Bug (Vladimir V. Medeyko) 20:20, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Dear Vladimir,
I think the number of articles is not so reasoned argument. Any WMF's wiki except Wikivoyage was starting having few articals. All the more so 461 aricles is not so little.
Before join WikiFocus to Wikimedia, if the Foundation agree, we must work creating some language versons of the wiki. I will try to participate in it.
And, yeah, Jimbo. Sorry, I forgot to say about existence of the Ukrainian articles. I write "articles", not "language version", because we while have only namespaces for Ukrainian articles and for their talk. But I hope we'll easy make uk.wikifocus.org like another language versions.
--Maxtirdatov (talk) 21:53, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

ArbCom is fundamentally broken

Jimmy, the motion to remove Elen from the ArbCom and revoke her CU status has failed only because of the number of inactive and recused ArbCom members. This means that a member of ArbCom can disclose everything and anything to the world but not have to worry about having their bit revoked. There is no community process to pick up where the ArbCom's policies fail. This is a patently absurd situation that begs for your remedy. Please don't allow someone who has admitted and been convicted of leaking private information to go unpunished. The above diff represents that ArbCom is fundamentally broken and remedy is urgent. 24.61.9.111 (talk) 04:09, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

The community is currently voting to fill more then half the seats on the committee, and Elen is up for reelection. The community can also amend the arbitration policy if it chooses. The remedy is to vote. Monty845 04:16, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
A general election is not what this situation calls for. It calls for justice and punishment. 24.61.9.111 (talk) 04:18, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
preventative, not punitive... - jc37 04:52, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
So an arbitrator can effect the worst possible violation of trust and get away with it scottfree? That's absurd.24.61.9.111 (talk) 04:55, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
I would suggest the in progress election will determine that, or at least, will determine if the community feels this was the "worst possible violation of trust". My sympathies to you on the fact that the lynching you so badly want isn't going to happen. Resolute 14:45, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Hmmm, what exactly was leaked? Was anyone damaged physically or financially in real life? No. That's the only legitimate reason for occasional use of a cloak of anonymity around proceedings of ArbCom, in my estimation. What was leaked, it would seem, was the hysterical ravings of one soon-to-be-replaced ArbCom member making use of the mailing list away from the fear of community scrutiny to attempt to threaten and bully other members of the committee into specific policy actions or to face political consequences from the shrieking ArbCommer... Elen doesn't need to be suspended, she needs a barnstar for bringing such preposterous behavior to light. Wikipedia needs to leave the notion that anonymous contributions are good and that secret deliberations are good. Time for this project to grow up. —Tim Davenport, Corvallis, OR, USA ///// Carrite (talk) 16:49, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
  • ArbCom is fundamentally broken, but not because the motion to remove Elen from the ArbCom and revoke her CU status has failed. Arbcom is broken because some arbitrators act as heartless, thoughtless robots while others are simply afraid to show they are still humans. The same applies to many administrators. The more power a person has, the less capacity he has to take another person’s perspective. The way the regime works now it is probably all but impossible to be an arbitrator and to remain a human being at the same time. Maybe Xeno and Iridescent have failed as arbitrators because they've chosen to remain human beings. Elen tries to remain a human being but sometimes being an arbitrator is more important for her. Self-betrayal is devastating, and I've observed Elen and others betraying themselves over and over again in order to keep their power.67.169.11.52 (talk) 05:22, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
  • As confirmed here by her fellow arbitrator, Elen actively lied to ArbCom on at least two occasions and maintained that lie for nearly two weeks. In the process, she directly hampered an ongoing investigation. You, Jimbo, know full well the seriousness of leaks from this list that have happened in the past. For Elen to have behaved in this manner is completely incompatible with her role as an arbitrator. ArbCom is left in a position where if she is re-elected, they will have an arbitrator in their midst who has previously lied to the committee, and the committee will be powerless to do anything about it. Is this what you want ArbCom to become? --Hammersoft (talk) 17:01, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
  • If the community re-elects Elen, that is exactly what we want... While I think your statement is mostly hyperbole, those who agree with it have the chance to go vote and avoid it. Those who don't, can also vote based on what ever issues motivate them. As for the specific conduct and what to do about it, the election will close the matter one way or the other. Monty845 17:24, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
  • There is absolutely nothing hyperbolic about the fact that Elen lied to the committee, maintained the lie for two weeks, and directly hampered an ongoing investigation. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:29, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
Oh, come on now! If Jimbo removed all arbitrators who have ever lied on Wikipedia, there would be nobody left in that Committee, including Jimbo himself. 67.169.11.52 (talk) 18:33, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Hammersoft is absolutely correct. For you, Jimbo, to take no action on this is to condone Elen's actions. Please don't sweet this under the rig. Remove her from the ArbCom now. Please. 24.61.9.111 (talk) 22:47, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
Without getting into duplicating the zillion words written elsewhere on this, the above is certainly spun to the max. North8000 (talk) 23:03, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
  • And again I note the bare facts are in no way hyperbolic nor spun. It's a simple fact with a simple question. Elen lied to the committee and maintained that lie for nearly two weeks. Pure, simple, confirmed fact [20]. The descendant simple question is does Jimbo want an arbitration committee to be comprised in part with a person who lied to the committee? --Hammersoft (talk) 17:13, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
I thought impeaching Bill Clinton was a stupid waste of time also. Carrite (talk) 18:01, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
  • "What Jimbo wants" carries no more value or weight than what I want, you want or anyone else wants. What the community wants will be decided via the election. Resolute 14:54, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
    • Jimbo has the power to remove people from ArbCom. Count Iblis (talk) 17:01, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
      • Yes, I know that. It is patently obvious that the hope is that Jimbo will overrule the community if it should choose to retain Ellen as an arbitrator. Or, at the very least, that a verdict from Jimbo will sway opinion in the way some want. Myself, I hold that Jimbo is not god, and that his opinion is his alone. Consequently, it matters the same as yours on issues like this. Resolute 17:07, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Although I agree that in many cases the details are being amplified way beyond what they should be, I think that we need to look at this "breech" that Elen did as exactly what it was. A breech of trust. The members of Arbcom are supposed to represent our most respected editors and should be held to a higher standard than the reguler editor so if they should do something wrong, then the punishment (call it what you will) should be appropriate to that level of trust. If a regular editor did (and they do all the time) something like this they would have been blocked, potentially banned and if applicable desysopped. This is IMO no different than editing through a block or using an alternate account to increase vote counts on a discussion. It was a breech of trust, regardless of the information that was relaeased. With that said, I think Elen was not the only Arb in the wrong and the other culprit should also have been cast out, at least temporarily. Kumioko (talk) 17:23, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

  • @Resolute, Let me see: "Commons is broken", ArbCom is fundamentally broken,an established Wikipedian is concerned about "Wikipedia's lynch mob mentality", and Jimbo is incapable of doing anything to fix the problems? It looks like Jimbo has created Frankenstein, and lost his power over it. Now a bunch of anonymous people, many of whom suffer from a lynch mob mentality, are playing with this monster at their will and pleasure.67.169.11.52 (talk) 17:24, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
    • The irony of your comments is that, in my view, one of the biggest reasons why people pull a "run to Jimbo" is to try and form a lynch mob. "Everybody, come see this issue I think is a major problem and help me fight it!" And hell, if you can get Jimbo to join your mob... Resolute 17:46, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
      Now it is my mob? I do not think you understood my comment. I've never said Jimbo should remove Elen from ArbCom. I believe that Elen has some potentials of bringing a human face to the Arbitration Committee, a human face that could somehow resist the lynch mob mentality of many arbitrators. I believe that Jimbo has these potentials too, but he will not use them, not after this vote. 67.169.11.52 (talk) 18:12, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
I think sometimes we need to laud the courage of a whistleblower who can disclose the abuse of a sikrit postbag as a cloaking device by another arb. Of the two sins, the dishonourable misuse of the list in the first place was the far more chilling one. I know full well which of the two arbs I've personally voted for and against. Pesky (talk) 18:32, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Blanket use of diacritics in article titles/Stripping of majority-English-usage names

As mentioned here, I am concerned about the complete stripping out of majority-usage English naming from English Wikipedia. Surely English Wikipedia is supposed to be a trustworthy guide to how the names of Nobel Prize winners like Lech Walesa, winners at the Olympics, and the like, are spelled in reputable English sources in the real world. It is important to give the foreign-language versions of names in articles, but surely it is even more important not to completely strip the widely-used English version of foreign names out of articles. Wikipedia guidelines are quite clear on this:

  • WP:DIACRITICS: "follow the general usage in reliable sources that are written in the English language"
  • WP:UE: "The choice between anglicized and local spellings should follow English-language usage";
  • WP:EN: "The title of an article should generally use the version of the name of the subject which is most common in the English language, as you would find it in reliable sources (for example other encyclopedias and reference works, scholarly journals and major news sources).
  • MOS:FOREIGN: "adopt the spellings most commonly used in English-language references for the article"

If all majority-usage English-language versions of foreign-language names are stripped out of English Wikipedia, then it will no longer be a trustworthy resource as to how the names of famous people are spelled in reputable English media (by the Nobel Prize Committee, on English-language autobiographies, or in the on-line records of winners and record holders at Olympic games, for example). English Wikipedia will cease to be a reliable and neutral resource on how the real world actually is, and contain only foreign-language versions of names (which the majority of English native speakers surely cannot read, write, or remember). There may be redirects from several different English misspellings (like Walensa and Walsa in the case of Walesa), but users will no longer be able to find the widely-accepted plain English spelling on Wikipedia. The premature shutting down of an RfC on this issue (Diacritics and reliable sources for names in BLPs) surely illustrates the problem, as does the discussion on the Walesa talk page.

It's not just the fact that Wikipedia guidelines are being ignored, it's the fact that some Admins are cooperating with the intimidation and discrediting—the baiting, bullying, and blocking—of users who point out that the guidelines say that both English and foreign versions should be shown, and that the article title should be the majority-usage version (whether this is with or without diacritics). If cronyism, intimidation, and ignoring of guidelines are going to trump polite discussion of problems, then maybe things are irreparably broken? What do you think? LittleBen (talk) 16:32, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Just to let you know Jimmy, that this wikilink that he provided is likely the Genesis of him approaching you. The ends does not ever justify the means in any situation - this one included. Ben's current problem is the means, not the ends. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 18:55, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
I dunno, sometimes we need to do the wrong thing in order to pursue the right result. Article titles and intros should have English names/letters in them, with transliterations further down in the lead as warranted. Have you ever seen a news reporter who when speaking about our neighbor to the south, calls it "Me-hi-co" trying to be all progressive and worldly-sounding ? I want to reach thru and throttle them. It's Mexico. M-E-X-I-C-O. Tarc (talk) 19:08, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
Remind me to not meet you in person, I wouldn't enjoy having my life threatened because I take the time and effort of the minimal courtesy of trying to write and pronounce a person's or nation's name correctly. — Coren (talk) 20:34, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
Without endorsing even the humorous suggestion of violence, I just wanted to point out that the correct pronunciation of Mexico, in English, is "Mexico" not "Me-hi-co". There's a distinctive English 'x' sound as in 'box'. Tarc is write to hold people who pretentiously mispronounce in English to sound "progressive and worldly" in disdain. The suggestion that it is discourteous to people who live there and pronounce it a different way when they are speaking their own language is wrong. It's not discourteous to talk about Japan rather than Nihon. It's not discourteous to talk about Munich rather than Muenchen. When the French call London "Londres" they are not being offensive. Different languages have different words and different pronunciations for different things. The suggestion that those who want to write English Wikipedia in English are discourteous is wrong. (I have sometimes seen the suggestion go even further into wrongness into claims that we are being provincial or racist or whatever. That's all wrong.) English Wikipedia is written in English. Polish Wikipedia is written in Polish. Japanese Wikipedia is written in Japanese. There's nothing wrong with that.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 20:48, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
Yes, but there is a distinction between a name that has been different in various languages for centuries (Your example of London is particularily amusing because Londres is in fact the original Norman name with "London" being the translation) and misspellings caused by the vague combination of technical limitations and lazyness that the printing press has wrought. "Sven Bartschi" isn't "Sven Bärtschi" in english; it's just misspelled (and, in the 21st century of near-universal Unicode support, it's probably mispelled by someone who couldn't be arsed to find the ä rather than because the equipment they were using couldn't represent it at all). — Coren (talk) 22:38, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
Just pointing out that "London" is not a "translation" of Londres - the Roman name of the city was Londinium, and the name certainly had Celtic, and probably pre-Celtic, roots. Ghmyrtle (talk) 23:36, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

This is like the hundredth venue LittleBenW has brought this up in the last month or so (ok, a bit of an exaggeration, but that's the essence of it). He keeps moving from one place to another trying to convince others of his stance and so far has failed at each one. He has resorted to making nonconstructive POINTY edits (for example to Lech Wałęsa, which by the way, Britannica, that standard of English usage, has WITH the diacritics [21] (one of the many ways in which sources get misrepresented by partisans in these discussions)). There are really better things to waste one's time on, then re-arguing this issue over and over and over and... over over over again.

Also, I believe that another user was recently indef banned from Wikipedia for pursuing a similar agenda in a similar aggressive manner which ignored the general consensus of editors. The username escapes me right now, and it's not really important enough to go digging through WP:AN/I archives. Volunteer Marek  19:33, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

You are probably referring to either User:Dolovis or User:GoodDay. Both of whom were banned from diacritics issues over the last year. Its ridiculous that people get quite so worked up over this all. -DJSasso (talk) 19:38, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
Yup, that'd be the one. At first when I encountered LittleBenW I thought I was dealing with a sockpuppet. I don't think that's the case, but the behavioral issues are pretty much the same. Volunteer Marek  19:45, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
When I first joined Wikipedia seven year ago, I thought the same. "English doesn't include squiggly marks!". Over time, I have come to realize what much of the real world is - that dropping diacritics due to either laziness or technical limitations is not "proper English". And the problem those with a zealous opposition to their use has is that the real world is rapidly adopting their use as part of common English. Most movies these days use proper diacritics in the credits. The Metro chain of newspapers usually uses them now. Even North American sports teams are starting to use them, e.g.: Sven Bärtschi. I also see Latin American names spelled on the ESPN/TSN sports tickers all the time. The reality is, modern technology has overcome these limitations, and it is becoming less and less acceptable to simply drop a diacritic and call it an "English translation". It seems that the more obvious this reality becomes, the harder its opponents fight to keep their personal POV. And that, unfortunately, is why we are seeing battleground behaviour on Wikipedia that is leading to topic bans. Resolute 20:22, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
*sigh* Where were you when the whole Cote d'Ivoire bollox by User:Beeblebrox happened, which has led to every single article related to that country renamed, even though its official English name is Cote d'Ivoire (with squigglies) (✉→BWilkins←✎) 21:30, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
Aw c'mon B. I've said again and again that the problem is that ya'll had the wrong discussion to begin with and my close should not be taken as a mandate to change the names of other articles. I'm also not so sure, based on Jimmy's comments above which I agree with 100%, that he would agree that "Ivory Coast" is not the English name of the country. Just this week I heard a report on BBC news where they used "Ivory Coast" exclusively, not even mentioning the other name. (I would also note that I find it ironic that despite being so upset about this you are apparently not concerned enough to use what you believe is the proper name and apparently don't even know what to call the "squiggles" ) Beeblebrox (talk) 22:39, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
You know I only called them squiggles because that's what someone called them above :-) Besides, my laptop is diacritically-challenged ... however, the repercussion of your decision is that dozens of articles are now wrong-titled ... that's kinda what I was trying to get you to recognize: the long-term effects of what seemed like a minor thing (✉→BWilkins←✎) 23:02, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
I'd guess your laptop was produced for the English-speaking market. I agree 100% with Jimbo and have tried to keep the English Wikipedia English to no avail. I married a Colombian national over 30 years ago; when we moved to the States we started pronouncing our surname with an English accent, out of deference to our English-speaking friends, and because it's just plain awkward to suddenly switch languages. Same applies here, only in writing rather than speaking, imo. Yopienso (talk) 23:17, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
One of the problems with this whole argument is all the people who think to themselves "my friends/people I know don't use diacritics, the TV I watch doesn't use them, and these all speak English, hence using the squiggles is NOT English, dammit!". But of course that's the wrong standard. Academic sources and other reference works, which are the relevant standard. And these do use the "squiggles". What is happening is that you got a bunch of people who *think* they know English usage in sources comparable to Wikipedia (nay, more serious ones even), but they don't. Like I pointed out above, if omitting diacritics is "proper English" (wth that is), then why does BRITAINnica use'em? This, btw, has noting to do with intellectual pretension but with simple accuracy and precision. Which, um, is what an encyclopedia is supposed to embody. Volunteer Marek  00:18, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
Probably the issue is simpler than that. The English alphabet seems diacritics free. So, if you are using the Spanish (ennnyaa) with the tilde on top of the n, you are using a Spanish letter, in a piece written in English. Now, sure you can use the foreign letter and foreign spelling but the convention use to be that foreign words and latin words were italicized, and regardless you have to admit you are using a foreign spelling, because that letter does not exist in the English alphabet. The issue hardly seems worthy of all the fuss, but with someone like Lech Walesa, whose name has been written in the English alphabet (anglicized) for more than 40 30 years in RS, it is not surprising that you have people coming to that article asking about it; one way to deal with that is a parenthetical (or Lech Walesa). Alanscottwalker (talk) 00:57, 1 December 2012 (UTC) (strike to correct 40 to 30, when the error was pointed out (substantive point remains unchanged) - Alanscottwalker (talk) 03:05, 1 December 2012 (UTC) )
one way to deal with that is a parenthetical (or Lech Walesa) - but that's essentially insulting the reader's intelligence, in that it assumes that a reader is too stupid figure out that the person named Lech Wałęsa is the same as the guy named Lech Walesa they might have encountered somewhere before. The Britannica link is right up there, and as far as I am aware that's a English language, reliable and comparable source. So by that standard, Lech Wałęsa, IS English.
Oh, and by the way, I seriously doubt that "Lech Wałęsa" "has been written in the English alphabet (anglicized) for more than 40 years in RS" as "Lech Walesa". While that's not quite impossible, the chances of it being true are slim. Hence, you're making stuff up. Ah, Wikipedia. Volunteer Marek  01:16, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
Huh? Oh, I meant to write 30. He was written about in all the best English sources 30 years ago. Alanscottwalker (talk) 01:22, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
{edit conflict} No, he wasn't making it up; he was winging it from memory and missed it by a few years. Walesa was very much in the news in 1976, and while I don't have the proof, we can be sure his name was then squiggle-free. Time named him Person of the Year in 1981; no squiggles. Please note En. Brit. doesn't do the Vietnamese diacriticals. So, which example do we follow? Yopienso (talk) 01:29, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
Correct. Moreover, Britannica does not claim to add letters to the English alphabet. Alanscottwalker (talk) 01:38, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
See also, the "Biography of Lech Walesa" anglicized by the Nobel Prize committee:[22] Alanscottwalker (talk) 02:06, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

<--- *Sigh*. No, Wałęsa was NOT "very much in the news in 1976". I'm guessing you guys are young and don't know what you're talking about and are putting up the best front you can (if not, then that's actually worse). I actually do remember when he first came to prominence (and have had the pleasure of meeting the guy - though I'm not much of a fan, as it happens). Also, we're not in 1981 when Time magazine was probably technologically incapable of including diacritics in its print version. It's 2012, 21st century, all that, and I'm sure there is some retro corner of the internet where these kinds of sentiments can be accommodated. But Wikipedia purports to be a modern encyclopedia and so spelling the guy's name right is sort of... required, if Wikipedia wants to live up to that promise.

I don't know about the inclusion of Vietnamese diacritics. Maybe it makes sense, maybe it doesn't, it depends on the sources. I'm not an absolutist when it comes to this issue, unlike most of the anti-diacritic fanatics that have found their home here. So maybe it should be "Viet Minh" rather than "Việt Minh". I don't know, it's not my area of expertise. I am puzzled by your comment on the talk page of that article however [23] which basically justifies your opposition to diacritics there by the fact that... they annoy YOU. Honestly, the fact that presence of "squiggles" annoys a user account named Yopienso on Wikipedia is not quite sufficient reason to dumb it down. When I see the "Việt Minh" written out I think to myself "Hmm, that's interesting. What do these marks mean, what is the actual pronunciation of the term, and what does it imply about the subject?" It makes me more interested in the subject. As a good encyclopedia article should. Volunteer Marek  02:14, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. (I have also met the man). But anglicization of Polish into English is nothing new. Alanscottwalker (talk) 02:26, 1 December 2012 (UTC). However your insistence that anglicization is "wrong" is but another bias. Alanscottwalker (talk) 02:43, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
Yeah, ok, sure, right back at ya, "your argument is nothing new", "your insistence is "wrong", "I'm right!", "I want I want I want!!!" "Me me me and my view my view my view!!!". We can claim stuff all day long.
An assertion is not an argument. I think I've showed pretty conclusively above that the diacritic version IS used by academic and comparable encyclopedic sources. You can type the letters: w. r. o. n. g. in all you want. It doesn't make it so. Volunteer Marek  03:35, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
What? Contrary sources have been produced. And you've produced no sources that say anglicization of words is "wrong." Anglicization happens; it's a real world phenomena. Whether any editor thinks it's wrong or not is irrelevant. Alanscottwalker (talk) 03:48, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

I do tend to get really annoyed when people alter their original comments or insert new comments into old threads in a way to make it seem like they "knew it all along", rather than responding to the criticisms raised. It's sort of dishonest. Anyways...  Volunteer Marek  02:39, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

What? Alanscottwalker (talk) 02:45, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Britannica is surely the only "reliable" source to use diacritics for Walesa's name in English? Surely it would cost them too much money to switch diacritics-only articles to show both diacritics and majority English usage? Surely Britannica and all other reliable sources don't use diacritics for Vietnamese, so "because Britannica does it" cannot be given as a reason for warring in favor of moving all Vietnamese article titles to diacritics. LittleBen (talk) 02:57, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
Not quite as underhanded as alleging that those who Anglicize foreign words/names is some act of insult or slur. "Wałęsa" does not exist in the English language. Period. Seriously, Americans use diacritics for one of two reasons, 1) World of Warcrafters who like unique names and 2) Mötley Crüe fans.
And @Coren way up above re "having my life threatened", please don't be stupid. You and everyone else know what I said was a figure of speech, not a literal wish/desire to cause bodily harm. That kind of drama-queenery pretty much deligitimizes whatever point you were trying to make in the first,place. Smarten up. Tarc (talk) 02:53, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
I've responded to hyperbole with hyperbole, nothing more. — Coren (talk) 03:15, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
No Coren, you replied to an opinion with a mealy-mouthed lie. Take my name out of your mouth in the future if you lack the common decency of an honest person. Tarc (talk) 05:12, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
"Wałęsa" does not exist in the English language. Period. Seriously, Americans use diacritics for one of two reasons, 1) World of Warcrafters who like unique names and 2) Mötley Crüe fans. - Oy! Come on Tarc! In addition to all the World of Warcraft players who, for obviously obvious reason, name their panda monks "Lech Wałęsa" (what. the. fuck.???) and that Motley Crew drummer who exploded whose name was Lech Wałęsa (wtf^2), you forgot that third reason - it's freaking used by Britannica which is neither WoW nor Motley Crue. And other sources. Again, you're just making shit up and projecting your own conception of reality - which is more or less the "my friends don't use diacritics so it's not English dammit and I'm a lazy bum, so it's like "Walesa", dude!". Give it a break. "Wałęsa" very much does exist in the English language. And it certainly should be used in what claims to be a reliable reference work. Period. Seriously. Get over it. Mannnnnn. Volunteer Marek  03:18, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Surely the same silly argument (that majority usage plain-English rendering is insulting) applies to Chinese, Japanese, and Korean? So why don't people refuse Nobel Prizes and Olympic medals, and refuse to permit English-language autobiographies, if they think that being famous in English-speaking countries is "an insult"? Look at the section Arguments against adopting the English usage of reputable sources in English Wikipedia in the RfC (about "Diacritics and reliable sources for names in BLPs") for more silly arguments. LittleBen (talk) 03:35, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
It would be useful to see direct cites for the claim that diacritics letters are used in English words. Or is that claim being made up? Alanscottwalker (talk) 03:40, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
Jesus Fucking Christ, how many times have I linked to the Britannica article on Lech Wałęsa [24] already????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? I'm sorry but you're either being fundamentally dishonest, you're incapable of reading the English language, or you're suffering from a severe case of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. Or all three. And this basically encapsulates the whole diacritics debate where there's no other word to describe partisans like you except with words like "zealot" , "fanatic", "POV pusher" and... "internet looser". This is the point where WP:AGF goes out the window (as it should, per policy). Bang. Bang head against the wall. Like I said, I'm not absolutist in regard to this debate. There are cases where diacritics make sense, and there are ones where they don't. It depends. On sources. Like Britannica. Why am I wasting my time with bullheaded people who have taken up this silly misguided cause as their banner and raison d'etra (wait, should that have an accent mark)?. Volunteer Marek  03:57, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
No. That article does not directly discuss the use of diacritics in the English language, at all. Is there a misunderstanding about what it means to directly discuss something in a reliable source article? Alanscottwalker (talk) 04:04, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
WP has no policy of blindly following the Encyclopedia Britannica's every lead.
And yes, I should have looked up when "Solidarity" was daily in the news. I was thinking it was when I was living in a certain place in 1976, but now that I've looked it up, it was about the time I got married. Please forgive my poor old memory. Yopienso (talk) 04:16, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
Guys, keep in mind that Marek is one of the deeper Wikipediocracy Kool-Aid drinkers, and could never bring himself to actually admit you're right, since that'd earn displeasure from certain luminaries over there. The Wikipedia is not beholden to Britannica or feel-good political correctness. If you're writing English, you ain't using squiggles. Simple as that. Tarc (talk) 05:02, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
Tarc, you're being a dishonest schmuck. Since you hang out at Wikipediocracy as much or even more than I do, you know damn well that there's no "official stance" on diacritics (or much of anything else) on Wikipediocracy. To think that arguing against diacritics would somehow "earn displeasure from certain luminaries over there" is frankly idiotic. I don't think anybody there cares. And if they do, some of them might even agree with you not me. So stop making stuff up. And sorry, but I'd rather that our practice on Wikipedia was "beholden" to what Britannica does (you can call it political correctness, I can call it not dumbing down our articles), rather than being "beholden" to the opinions of some guy named "Tarc" on the internet. Simple as that. Volunteer Marek  17:39, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
Sorry, all the personalization and emotive stuff in the comments is unhelpful from anyone. It's inexplicable really. We're talking diacritics here, after all; the personalizations, mal-formed and wild put-downs, or over emotional stuff (complete with lots of punctuation) makes little sense and no useful points. It's hard to tell if any of my comments are being addressed, but for the record, none of my comments are zealous, fanatical, or pushing anything except examination of the arguments. It's odd that all that came from a slight suggestion to just put the well-sourced, anglicization, "Lech Walesa," in a parenthetical in the article on the man, and be done with that. - Alanscottwalker (talk) 05:55, 1 December 2012 (UTC) (See also, the 2009 dedication speech by Lech Wałęsa of . . . Lech Walesa Hall [25] at around 22:00 -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:11, 1 December 2012 (UTC))
  • I'd agree that surely something like "(better known in English as ...)" or "(usually written in English as ...)" in the lede would be a bare minimum way of indicating widely-accepted English usage if Wikipedia guidelines are not followed and the article title is not the majority version (or exclusive version) in English. LittleBen (talk) 11:43, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
What is the point of all that in the parenthetical? "Better" and "usually" are weasel words and are themselves probably unsourced. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:16, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
  • If the article doesn't indicate (by the title, as per the Wikipedia guidelines) what the preferred majority-usage version in English is, then many users are not going to be able to work it out, as explained here (motto #2) (this is the user in Poland who originally created the Walesa page with a plain-English title). LittleBen (talk) 12:22, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
  • (Change of topic) One Wikipedia editor was threatened with a "bitey cesspit" if he were to dare to support majority English usage for Vietnamese names. Surely such intimidation gives users the impression that Wikipedia is inhabited by a dangerous lunatic fringe of ultra-nationalists. While I can understand some WMF people saying, "We just raise money and draw a salary, we don't have any responsibility for what goes on", I feel that there should be a zero-tolerance policy towards intimidation. LittleBen (talk) 12:22, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
Alan, see for example The Editor's Companion (Cambridge University Press). The New Oxford Dictionary for Writers and Editors gives only one spelling for Wałęsa, the one with diacritics. These are not exceptional. The lists of geographical and personal names at the end of Merriam-Webster's dictionaries have diacritics. Andreas JN466 14:02, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
Yet The Lech Walesa Foundation has it differently. Anyhow, this is not the point. His name should be spelled according to normal usage in EL sources, whatever that turns out to be, exactly per COMMONNAME. Arguments that using English is offensive or that the problem with English language sources is they don't know how to use the English language are just plain dim-witted. Formerip (talk) 14:32, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
I just ran Lech Wałęsa through Google translate, the result was "Polish-detected / English / Lech Walesa". I'm sure Google is not technically limited, intellectually lazy, or discourteous. My76Strat (talk) 14:39, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
Thank you, Jayen, for coming forward with a useful data point. The link you provide is interesting, as it says be aware of and note anglicization (which was the point my comments made). It also points to an issue which probably underlies some of this with respect to Polish (in that, particular, cite's discussion of Korean names). Anglicization of Polish names is probably common for Poles in many English speaking countries. Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:43, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Alan and Jayen466 (Andreas): The Australian "Editor's Companion" reference that Jayen provided is dated 2011, but the contents seem to be almost exactly the same as on p.93-94 of the original 2004 edition which you can view on Amazon. This out-of-date material does not appear to have been significantly revised, and probably does not reflect current press (or professional editing) practice in Australia or elsewhere, as you can confirm by searching reliable sources. Walesa is listed without diacritics on p.1508 of the latest 11th (2009 reprint of 2003) edition Merriam-Webster's. LittleBen (talk) 14:51, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
Google Ngram. Although Lech Wałęsa appears to flatline, it's not actually at 0%, so unless I'm missing something it's not a technical inability of Ngrams to interpret diacritics. Herostratus (talk) 15:52, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
Ah, thanks, for Yopienso's sake, the Lech Walesa upswing begins fortuitously in 1976. Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:59, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
Trust me, nobody had heard of Wałęsa in 1976, except a couple electricians that were working alongside of him at the shipyard. And google ngram is actually horrible at picking up sources with diacritics (and several other things). Volunteer Marek  17:42, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
Ben, are you looking at a proper copy or a smudgy online preview? I checked Credo, M-W.com and my PC version of the 11th edition; the spelling used is Wałesa. The L with a stroke is also used by Chambers Biographical Dictionary and Oxford World Encyclopedia. American Heritage, Britannica, Collins English Dictionary, Columbia Encyclopedia, Encarta, The Macmillan Encyclopedia, Oxford Dictionaries and Random House Dictionary include both diacritical marks; Wałęsa. No reputed dictionary or encyclopedia seems to support the diacriticless spelling. I've updated my comparison on the topic. Prolog (talk) 17:57, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
Prolog, that's a very nice and useful chart, thanks for making it. Could you put Casimir Pulaski in there for comparison? That's one of the cases where I actually oppose including diacritics and would like to see how that compares to the other cases. Volunteer Marek  18:04, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
If you go to the Library of Congress online catalog [26] and type in "Lech Walesa" (w/o diacritics) and choose either "Author" or "Subject" it takes you to a list organized under "Lech Wałęsa" (w/ diacritics): [27], [28]. So apparently those politically correct, non-English speaking librarians at the Library of Congress categorize the guy with diacritics.
Of course, if you look for the same under "Title" you get both diacritic and non-diacritic versions. Interestingly the non-diacritic versions appear to be mostly in French and Italian, while English language works, especially recent ones, tend to use the diacritics. Volunteer Marek  19:35, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
Amazon have him as "Lech Wa??sa", although you can see from the book covers that his English language publishers think he is Lech Walesa. Formerip (talk) 20:07, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Regardless of what Britannica does, our style is to use the common name in the title. The common name plus a Latin-1 diacritic such as an umlaut or an accent grave is still approximately the common name. But when we get to Polish or Vietnamese diacritics, this is no longer the case. The Chicago Manual of Style recommends following Merriam-Webster, which doesn't use these diacritics. See Walesa, Lech (Lech Wałęsa) or Ngo Dinh Diem (Ngô Đình Diệm). Unlike Britannica, our style is to put the "full name" including diacritics in the opening. So no information is lost if the diacritics are taken out of title. In fact, quite the reverse. Providing the conventional English language spelling is an important function of reference work, and the current practice misleads readers into thinking that diacritics are far more common in English than they actually are. I have no interest in Polish, but Vietnam is an editing focus of mine. Even Britannica doesn't use Vietnamese diacritics. Kauffner (talk) 14:15, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
The Chicago Manual of Style recommends following Merriam-Webster, which doesn't use these diacritics. - Nope, it does. It's already been pointed out above [29]. Please see the chart compiled by Prolog above. Current practice reflects common usage in standard English reference works. The evidence is there, lots of people just start experiencing a bad case of IDONTSEETHAT when it comes to this issue.VolunteerMarek 15:13, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
Actually, that link has it as "Wa·łe·sa" so maybe we need to include the dots and drop the diacritic on the e. Formerip (talk) 15:18, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
From the links you two gave, the M-W biography is under the anglicization, Welesa, Lech, and there is a separate short definition for the word Wa·łe·sa Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:24, 2 December 2012 (UTC) Upon futher review, "Welsa Lech" is the M-W encyclopedia entry, and "Wałesa" is a dictionary/pronunciation entry. Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:36, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
I didn't notice that. The dictionary entry (from Merriam-Webster's Biographical Dictionary) is the one CMOS recommends as authoritative, although in this case it's obviously a misprint. Kauffner (talk) 02:30, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

This thread served exactly its purpose: to serve as a battleground talking about issues that some people think have been dealt wrongly at their proper venues. Please go back to the respective venues if you think there is a chance to change the issues. But most likely the reason this is here is that there has been a track record of consensus at those venues. Can we let this thread die? Agathoclea (talk) 16:37, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Whatever the current policy is, I notice that the Việt Minh article cited presently has a mixture of "Việt Minh" and "Viet Minh". Diacritics in the title don't bother me, but trying to police every instance of the name in an article to include an untypeable character like "ệ" does seem a burden on the editors. Wnt (talk) 16:54, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Might not be the appropriate place to say it, but the whole ignoring WP:UE makes me uncomfortable that it justifies the wholesale change from common English name to Romanization of the home language of the subject like Kiev to Kyiv which is occasionally the center of disruptive edits by new editors who are unfamiliar with WP:UE. Are Ukrainian editors unhappy with it? Definitely. Do we intend to frustrate them? Honestly not. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk) 03:23, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

RFC/U

A pox on both your houses. I highly recommend that everyone chill out a bit. It's just a freakin' hyphen. I'm staying out of it, and will spend the time that I would have spent on this doing something more useful and entertaining, like maybe gouging my eyes out with forks. :-) --Jimbo Wales (talk) 19:35, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Please join the tar and feather mob at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Apteva. It is really quite funny that anyone would think that it is okay for Wikipedia to misspell airports and comets and tar and feather someone who disagrees. (endashes are a little known punctuation that is about three pixels longer than a hyphen, and is used in date ranges, like 1865–87, but not in names of airports, like Seattle-Tacoma International Airport, or comets, like the comet Hale-Bopp – in fact they are never used in proper nouns, in common usage – a hyphen is used 50 times as often as an endash in Mexican-American War, for example – see Wikipedia talk:MOS#Three corrections) Apteva (talk) 11:05, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

  • I have reviewed and supported User:Apteva in retaining hyphens: Hyphens should be kept in terms, as historically named, per wp:COMMONNAME, rather than force use of dashed names for wp:Advocacy of recent save-the-dash punctuation movements. See lengthy reply at:
When people want to topic-ban to silence a punctuation expert, while pushing the wp:Advocacy of new pro-dash punctuation trends, then I think the fanatical use of dashes has gone too far. There is no valid consensus, and I recommend removing the pro-dash, POV-pushing rules from wp:MOS (still a "guideline" not a "policy" of must-use dashes). I certainly hope User:Apteva realizes there are other sensible people on Wikipedia, who understand the recent obsession with dashes is a clear case of "wp:Righting great wrongs" to rename the world's hyphens with dashes. The delay in stopping the pro-dash onslaught is due to distraction by numerous other issues during the prior year. We are not fooled into thinking the world has waited centuries for the dash character to appear on keyboards, nor expect millions of people or partnerships with hyphenated names to be rushing to courthouses to re-register their compound surnames with dashes. The old term "hyphenated Americans" was chosen many years ago for a very clear reason. -Wikid77 (talk) 10:10, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jimbo_Wales/Archive_120&oldid=1149832384"