User talk:Jimbo Wales/Archive 175

This is an archive of past discussions about User:Jimbo Wales. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 170

←

Archive 173

→

Damon Sicore interview of Oct. 9, 2014

The Wikimedia Foundation's new VP of Engineering, Damon Sicore, gave a free-ranging interview via Internet Relay Chat yesterday. Those wishing to read a nicely-edited version of this by Wikipediocracy poster "Thracia" without having to go to WPO directly may see the material on a subpage of my user page on-Wiki at User:Carrite/Sicore_interview_141009. Carrite (talk) 14:38, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks!

I was pleasantly surprised when these edits to Sneha Anne Philip turned up on my watchlist a couple of days ago. Not only was it the first time your name showed up there, but it's nice to see that even today you're still not so busy being Jimmy Wales to make helpful content edits, even minor ones. It's a reminder in deed that we are here, first and foremost, to edit an encyclopedia. (And what was the context? Seems like you were looking at a bunch of missing-person articles around that time ...) Daniel Case (talk) 13:27, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Deletionism is Poisoning the Wells That Everyone Are Drinking From

Dear Jimbo,

I recently wrote a post on my Facebook account based on what I wrote to a deletionist who deleted Olamot Con because a different deletionist marked it for speedy deletion, before I had a chance to work on it further and address their concerns. Here is the link - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:FreeRangeFrog#A_BIG_FUCK_YOU_TO_YOU.2C_SCUM_OF_THE_EARTH.21.21.21_YOU_ARE_NOT_A_GENTLEMAN.21.21.21 . Wikipedia deletionists like him are poisoning the wells of everyone and demotivate people considerably. You should speak against them NOW!!! Shlomif (talk) 08:45, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

The deleted article had one entire sentence: "Olamot is an annual Science Fiction and Fantasy convention (“Con”) that takes place in Tel Aviv, Israel during Passover." It had two external links, one official and another link to a deeper page within the official site. If you really want to write this article, work on it more in your own user space, for instance by clicking on the following: User:Shlomif/Olamot. If you develop the article more fully in user space, with references from third parties, then it will survive speedy deletion. Binksternet (talk) 11:38, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

@FreeRangeFrog:, @Binksternet:: ...and the sentence was deleted as {{db-g11}}, which was wrong, as it was informative rather than exclusively promotional. On a side note, the Israeli English language radio TLV1 calls Olamot Con ... one of the most successful sci-fi conventions in Israel. Suzanne Selengut from The Jerusalem Post wrote quite an extensive article about the convention, it is called Pessah treat for fantasy fans (2006). Sources in Hebrew include for example this article published by News1 (2005) and I'm sure that editors fluent in Hebrew could find out more so it would be reasonable to give Shlomif a chance to work on it further and address the concerns before deletion. I personally would place the deleted content under User:Shlomif/Olamot and let him to do so. --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 12:26, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

The criteria should have been A7, not G11. I take responsibility for that, and I've restored it and deleted again as such, because it's important that we are precise in these cases. Looking at this thread, I think the removal of a 1-line textbook A7 is hardly the basis to endlessly argue about deletionism, but that's just me. In any case, it's not hard to understand our policies. It's not hard to ask someone if those policies are not clear. It's not hard to follow those policies. So it's not hard to understand that new articles about certain topics require a minimum assertion of importance, and eventually also need to meet a notability guideline. It's not hard to understand that it's good to use drafts or a sandbox. None of this is hard, especially not for someone who has been around for a while. I have no particular opinion about Shlomif's post on my talk page - I wouldn't have accepted to go for the mop if something like that made me lose sleep (should I start my own rant about how I've been horribly insulted and complain to Jimbo as well?) other than it worries me that the editor is so massively and easily offended by something like this that the next outburst is going to be against someone who doesn't have or need to have a thick skin and he's going to cost us a potential contributor or generate another round of unnecessary drama. But I also have no real sympathy for someone who thinks it's easier to insult people and organize a massive whine convention rather than just follow those policies and guidelines. And no, I would not have automatically userified the content, however I would have definitely restored it and userified if he had requested it along with minimal proof that the event has some notability. Unfortunately he chose to turn this into a personal attack and useless rant against the project. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 17:27, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

So you posted a message to his talk page with a title of "A BIG FUCK YOU TO YOU, SCUM OF THE EARTH!!! YOU ARE NOT A GENTLEMAN!!!", and expect any respect whatsoever to be given to your position or opinion? It wouldn't even matter if the gripe about "deletionists" was valid (it isn't), you're just going to be reverted as a troll and dismissed out of hand when you do that. Tarc (talk) 12:26, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

@Tarc: one angered and rash comment doesn't make anyone a troll! --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 13:00, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

When you scream profanities in all-caps, yea, it kinda does. Tarc (talk) 13:20, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Permalink. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 12:33, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

I have no opinion about the content of the dispute because I haven't looked into it and have no intention of looking into it. This is why the expression "not here to write an encyclopedia" was invented. I wonder who was the first to say that? Barnstar-worthy.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 19:53, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

So you have no intention to look on the matter but you think that Shlomif is "not here to write an encyclopedia"? Yes, his comment at User talk:FreeRangeFrog was really bad but he has offered a honest apology in his unblock request ... and I quite understand his exasperation. He actually tried to write an encyclopedia! --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 12:39, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

"This is why the expression "not here to write an encyclopedia" was invented. I wonder who was the first to say that? " -Honestly, I'd guess it was you!! You do seem far too busy to want to contribute to writing wikipedia. In fact the last article I heard you wrote was some restaurant article in South Africa back in like 2006 or something!..♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:28, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Many users often simply add to existing articles, or expand stub pages, and that is why their lists of created articles might seem too short, as with Jimbo who has expanded many articles beyond his list of created pages. -Wikid77 (talk) 22:47, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

3 articles since 2006. Exactly.♦ Dr. Blofeld 07:47, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

It's more often phrased "Not here to build an encyclopedia". It takes more than a bunch of prolific writers to build an encyclopedia. Jimmy is, among other things, our spokesperson. Influential people listen to him. Used judiciously, that access can smooth our way to our shared goal. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 05:00, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes, Jimmy is our spokesperson, but at the end of the day we are an encyclopedia and content is far more important than the politics and civility Jimmy seems more interested in. If once in a while Jimmy showed some sort of passion as an encyclopedist and genuinely seemed to have a love of encyclopedia writing and content and had more respect for editors who produce most of the decent work here (and who aren't afraid to air their concerns without rubbing his back) it would be reciprocated by many I'm sure. The budget is over $20 million and not a single cent goes into promoting actual content building which matters first and foremost. The priorities here are all wrong. Try reading User:Dr. Blofeld/Encyclopedia problems, I'm sure most would agree with it or at least part of it. I guess at least Jimmy acknowledges "We all know it's flawed. We all know we don't do as good a job as we wish we could do", but frankly I see little effort overall to try to improve many of the problems we have and the lack of real community focus on the actual encyclopedia. The leader/public face of wikipedia for me should be spending most of his time encouraging people to produce content and setting an example instead of devoting most of his time to politics and lecturing on how one should behave in the community. I'd like Jimmy to speak about how to write a great article and be a great encyclopedist once in a while. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 07:38, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Leader? I'm not sure Jimmy would accept that. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 08:54, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Doesn't he see himself as a "benevolent dictator" or a monarch?♦ Dr. Blofeld 08:58, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

A symbolic monarch whose role is just speaking the thoughts that bubble up through the community. (Closing Ceremony with Mexico team handover 6 min 30 sec). Wikipedia is leaderless. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 09:02, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Speaking his thoughts, exactly. If you ask most people in public "who is Jimmy Wales?" they'll say the wikipedia guy, the founder/leader.♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:18, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Well, I understood him as meaning he passes on or reflects what he divines as the view of the Wikipedia community in his speaking engagements and his dealings with the press. That's sort of channelling - being a passive vessel. Leadership is an active thing.

Leadership would involve, oh, I don't know, actually doing something about measuring the accuracy of Wikipedia, for instance. When I suggested that he said, "we should think of a strategy to move these ideas forward." I proposed a strategy, and he ignored me, letting the thread just evaporate off his talk page into the auto-archive - after warning me that he might not read any email I sent him.

No. I'm pretty sure even Jimmy wouldn't call what he does "leadership".

I'd be curious to know the process you use to divine the thoughts of the community, Jimmy.--Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 10:57, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Dr. Blofeld: Am I right that you generally view Good and Featured process as synonymous with building the encyclopedia? Would you be surprised, if other good encyclopedia builders did not hold those processes in the esteem that you do? Alanscottwalker (talk) 11:02, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

@Alanscottwalker: They're benchmarks in the development process and usually produce better results than if not reviewed by others, but a great article is a great article, regardless of it. I certainly do believe the most important goal on wikipedia is to get every article up to FA quality. While me may want editors to be nice to each other rather than unpleasant, and some politics is needed, nothing is more important than actual content.♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:21, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Well, that "FA quality" thing you stick by is rather empty. For persons of independent thought, reveiwed by Wikipedia editors, will be of marginal import. Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:44, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Writers are critical to building an encyclopedia, but it takes more than writers to build an encyclopedia. There are many important roles to be filled by people with different strengths. I don't see any value in denigrating those whose strengths lend to contributing in other areas of work. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 11:09, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm not meaning to, I'm just complaining that the people who run wikipedia seem more interested than politics and civility than actual encyclopedia writing and content building. There is not enough emphasis which goes into building content in discussions, wiki events and in financing which is why growth and improvement has been stalled for so long.♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:19, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

I completely agree with you. I'm seeing Lila in a few weeks, and I'm going to ask her to be a leader on those issues you raise. She's a good, moral, intelligent woman, as far as I can see, and someone I would trust and support, but she also has this technical mess to sort out, so may not have the time. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 11:36, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

As someone with many featured and good articles, I'd be completely incapable of doing it if I didn't have someone actually running the good or featured article process, someone reaching agreement on style guides and standards, someone keeping bad-faith or unproductive editors out of my way so I can focus. And just like that it turns out we actually need metapedians and people who care about how people behave. Fancy that.

I object particularly to the idea that discussing and working on the theory of how we all work together productively, and encouraging that, is somehow less worthwhile than content contributions. Where do you think mainspace editors come from? The outside world. And what drives them back there? Well, amongst other things, being treated terribly because we have a tremendously schizoid approach to how we treat people who misbehave yes, before anyone says anything, this is a category that has historically included me . If Jimmy wants to spend his time working on this problem, then as a long-term content contributor, with a whole run of FAs and GAs, I fully endorse this. Because a humane and civil editing environment is how I get people to help me with my articles, and how they stick around. Because a humane and civil editing environment is how we get rid of people who can't be civil, thus giving me the freedom to actually focus on writing articles rather than dealing with User:I Haven't Had Caffeine This Morning And I Have Strong Opinions About Oxford Commas Best Expressed Through The Use Of The Word Fuck.

And, frankly, if Jimmy wants to work on this problem, it doesn't matter what you think, and it doesn't matter what I think, because he's a volunteer here in the same way the rest of us are and gets to decide himself how he spends his time. The idea that he should be directed by what one editor thinks is best falls apart the moment >1 editors dispute what "best" is. Ironholds (talk) 11:20, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Jimbo can do whatever he likes. True. But remember that he's the one getting up there and lecturing on how editors should behave and how everybody must follow a strict moral code and condemning contributors who've put hundreds the amount of content into wikipedia than he has because he doesn't like how they behave. What I'm saying is if you don't contribute to actual content on wikipedia how can you even begin to understand why certain editors become involved in heated debates and are "uncivil".♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:29, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure that the founder of a top-10 website, and the only one with a non-profit status, who spends his life with microphones thrust at his face, has a vague inkling of an idea about what it's like to be in a high-pressure environment in which anything you say is immediately magnified and carried off with a hue and cry. Ironholds (talk) 11:35, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

You're employed by the foundation, of course you're going to say that.♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:40, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm not really seeing what the causative relationship is there. Because he's one of my (let's work this out) boss's, boss's, boss's, 10 bosses? We've met twice, both in passing, and lord knows I disagree with him often enough. If the best way you can think of to address my argument is "well you work for the Foundation, of course you're going to support him!" or "well you work for the Foundation, who cares what you think!" (it's hard to tell which one you're aiming for) rather than anything I've actually, you know, said or done, it may be a quicker resolution to just admit you don't have a cogent counterargument and wander off. Ironholds (talk) 11:47, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Can we all agree that Jimmy hasn't solved the social dysfunction here, and doesn't seem to have a plan? --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 11:48, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm not saying that each person hasn't their part to play in the project, look at those people who protect the site from vandalism or whatever... I am saying though that I don't think there is enough love and focus from the people running the site into promoting actual content on wikipedia as I've approached them at least half a dozen times about schemes which I think will dramatically improve content in the long term and find them to be completely unapproachable. I know a lot of content contributors here, myself included, who feel completely alienated from the foundation and Jimbo and share the belief that they're not interested in writing an encylopedia. If they are, then why is the focus always on the politics and civility and not on promoting content? For all the parts each plays, nothing is more important that the actual goods. Most wikipedia readers couldn't give a toss about what goes on behind the scenes. I just wish I could see more examples of Jimbo and the foundation actively trying to promote content on wikipedia.♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:50, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Well, I speak for neither Jimmy nor the Foundation, and I haven't seen any of your proposals, and I'm not speaking as a researcher, to boot, but: I don't think "is it something readers care about" is the standard. The standard is "does it help build things readers care about",i.e. content. Direct contributions to content are worthwhile. Indirect contributions, via promoting civility and other things necessary to have an actual, welcoming community with a low barrier for good-faith people who will write content, are also worthwhile. We can't have edits without editors, and we can't have editors if one look at how we handle disputes or what standard of discourse we tolerate makes any reasonable human being instinctively take a melon baller to their eyes. If you want to promote good content, great. Good content requires us to, amongst other things, solve for systemic bias in our editor population. "People instinctively dissuaded by the quality, or lack thereof, of our interactions" is a really big demographic. This doesn't mean that your ideas aren't worthwhile, or that direct work on content wouldn't be good, but I dispute the idea that improving the environment we expect editors to work in and take support from doesn't translate to reader-facing improvements. Ironholds (talk) 11:57, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

I endorse the above. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 11:56, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

@Ironholds, read User:Dr. Blofeld/Encyclopedia problems. I think my argument, satirical images aside, is about as cogent as it gets in describing the problems with the site and why content is not the central priority.♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:04, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

And one of the things you highlight as a source of this problem is, and I quote, "A hostile community at times rears its ugly head and offers the worst of humanity". Sooo... As an employee of the research department when I'm wearing my other hat, and one who focuses on readers to boot, you might want to throw any specific ideas over to the mailing lists. If you're really enthusiastic, well, IEGs are a thing. Ironholds (talk) 12:23, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

@Anthonyhcole: Please do, hopefully Lila will see content as more of a priority than others do here and indicate that the foundation are actively thinking about ways to get editors to improve content and improving the relationship between the WF and the more prolific contributors. A big part of the misunderstanding I think is that they seem to lack an understanding of what it means to be a very active contributor and why people might be uncivil at times, or indeed why being more active with content increases the likelihood of heated disputes and "incivility". Wikipedia at times has the tendency to upset even the most civil or calm/rational minded of people.

For the record though, Wikimedia UK has always been a lot more supportive of content-related projects and I'm very grateful to them for their support with books. I just wish the main foundation were as approachable and were actively involved in the promotion of projects to improve content on wikipedia. Perhaps Lila could think of a way to make them more approachable to people with development ideas.♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:38, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

I endorse all of that too. And, yes, Wikimedia UK is, aside from the writers themselves, the most productive element of the Wikimedia mix, in my opinion. Their respect and support for content improvement is excellent, and I thought Wikimania was beautifully organised. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 13:09, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Given resources comparable to Wikimedia UK, I believe that Wikimedia DC would deliver comparable or greater results with respect to content, but only if the civility issue were improved.

An anecdote to illustrate the impact of civility: This week I had an opportunity to attend the CyArk 500 summit as a Wikipedia community representative. Here is a paraphrase of what one attendee from a major US university told me: "Wikipedia is a bunch of goofs. There was a guy sitting next to me on the plane with a T-shirt saying 'I edit Wikipedia.' What's that about? ... Sure, I talk like that with my friends sometimes, but I wouldn't talk like that when I am representing [this university], and not at this event-- they'd throw me out! Tell me, do you talk like that [at the place where you work]?"

(The university representative shook hands firmly and cordially with me at the conclusion of the event. I did not suggest that he or his institution collaborate with Wikipedia, as it was clear that this was not an option.) Djembayz (talk) 15:32, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

We should be harder on rudeness, yes. But that, alone, doesn't explain the almost complete lack of expert involvement here - (addendum) and neither does the user interface. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 01:16, 10 October 2014 (UTC) Addendum 11:40, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

The thing is, there's many, many content creators out there who rarely or never get into such altercations, never have a whiff of the wiki-arcana of ANI and Arbcom and the other twisty hallways of bureaucracy. Why do we waste so much time and energy discussing the same handful of boorish malcontents? Just get rid of them. No one person is singularly important to this project, despite what your mom said about special snowflakes. Tarc (talk) 13:20, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Actually, Jimmy is singularly important to this project. He's irreplaceable. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 13:30, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

These discussions of personal meetings and executive decisions deeply worry me. When policymaking and brainstorming grant special access to those who are, essentially, acting as lobbyists (whether on their own behalf or some organization I may or may not know about) everyone loses who actually works on Wikipedia here, in the open wiki. Not everyone is in a position to go see Lila and talk to her, and I tend to mistrust those who are able and willing to expend the resources to do so. We may need more carefully focused policy forums on-wiki to explore the issues such people might have control over. Wnt (talk) 16:25, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

@ Jimbo and Tarc I'd say the spirit of collaboration on this far surpasses what most of the regulars who comment here have ever achieved. That's what building an encyclopedia is all about, a lot of people here would learn from us. The so-called "boorish malcontents" have shown that they can not only work together, but do so in a way in which their work compliments each other to the benefit of the project. Jimbo you seem to think Eric is so unreasonable that he can't collaborate with people, well there's proof that he can work with at least half a dozen different people and work productively and "civilly". If you have a problem with how somebody acts you might want to look at the behaviour of others first.♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:32, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

"The so-called "boorish malcontents" have shown that they can not only work together...". In Batman #15, the Joker and the Riddler team up. Villains playing nice with each other doesn't mean a whole lot for the rest of us, other than greater misery. Tarc (talk) 20:25, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Now who's being uncivil...♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:26, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Uncivil? Certainly not I. I used an amusing analogy to comic book characters; uncivil would've been a nod to Hitler & Mussolini. Tarc (talk) 21:32, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

I spent at least an hour this morning finding newspaper articles to expand that article, and the others who contributed all spent time they didn't have to in expanding and ordering it. You've basically described that effort as a "greater misery", rather childishly likening it to Batman because you don't like the contributors. Which is what Jimbo frequently does, ignoring the good that people do as editors, rating "civility" above content. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:43, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

I spent an hour this morning getting over a hangover, then raking the yard, then taking the kiddos around town to a few fall yard sales, then stopped at Dunkin Donuts for pumpkin spice lattes and hot chocolate. Who's (or whose? Always get hose mixed up) hour was more fulfilling; mine for spending time in the outside world, or yours for working on a website without compensation or benefit? Tarc (talk) 22:06, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Whose hour was more worthwhile, yours or the Doctor's? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 22:11, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

So Tarc, you spent the morning basically as Homer Simpson LOL and I put in an hour or two into writing on wikipedia and I and others come out of it as a Batman baddie? Well, at least you acknowledge we work for a website "without compensation or benefit". Perhaps if we did we'd all function more professionally and be more "civil". Expecting everybody to be perfect little people and edit extensively is optimistic given this isn't it?♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:03, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Interesting insight, Dr. B., that respect might improve if people were paid. It suggests that people are perfectly capable of being civil if there is money in it for them. We're missing something basic here-- volunteering is supposed to be *fun.* Once burned, twice shy. If the way we present ourselves online is *no fun*, or *fun at other people's expense*, it doesn't help us retain volunteers. -- Djembayz (talk) 14:30, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Goodnight, sweet prince

(For our readers/lurkers who are old and don't get it, sub Don't cry for me Argentina in for a topic title)

Looks like I have time to slip one more message in. Alas, @Jimbo Wales:, I am being tossed from your page. If "Mr. 2001" ever does have something interesting to say, you're going to have to scour your history to snatch it from the memory hole yourself. Remember the good times...when we allargued about the Muhammad images on your page, or when everyone argued on your page about Gibraltar DYK's, or when we all argued about a BLP out-out for all. Seems like there's a lot of arguing on your page. Anyways, Farewell! (and unwatching) Tarc (talk) 13:22, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

This page is 10/10 lulz. Sorry to see you go. Why not say that you're happy to abide by remedy 1.2, which is what's likely to pass, rather than assuming a complete ban from this page. Jehochman ^Talk 15:22, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Ok I lied, I won't unwatch until the hammer comes down for sure. 1.2 is a separate issue, and as of now has passed along with #1. I asked for clarification, that since NYB spun out a separate "Jimbo ban" vote (which failed) if that superseded the "Jimbo ban" clause from #1, but |alas, no. C'est la vie (literally, the only French I know). Tarc (talk) 15:46, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

That wasn't me (my proposal was 1.2), but meh. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:15, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Newyorkbrad, I'd very much appreciate Tarc's input in the above discussion. Would you mind asking your colleagues to hold off on any Jimbo talk page ban until that's concluded, please? He's got one of the best minds here. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 12:03, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Don't worry, ol' Damocles here has a little more time, til the case is closed the the appropriate notices/warnings are posted by the clerks. Tarc (talk) 12:25, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

But then the Arbs have not decided that Jimbo cannot have an open door policy. So, even if you are banned from posting here by ArbCom, that ban still has the usual exceptions (as the Arbs themselves make clear) and on this page there are far more exceptions than on other pages (banned posters can in principle post here, the disute about one such posting led to that ArbCom case in the first place). Count Iblis (talk) 16:56, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Indeed, and it would be helpful if they'd clarify what an open door policy entails, and if it'd extend to banned users, but they are intent, it seems, on beating around the bush about it. KonveyorBelt 17:19, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Could someone please point me to where Jimbo has said that he has an open door policy? Further, surely Jimbo saying that certain people cannot post here is evidence that he doesn't. Worm^TT(talk) 12:07, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Surely Jimbo interacting with "certain people" is proof that he does. I don't know why you and a handful of Arbs were unable to get this; if banned user posts a non-trolling/non-inflammatory post, it is more likely that it will be allowed to remain on this talk page, while a post that is just trolling/inflammatory will likely be deleted, or at best ignored/hatted/archived. Do you understand that that is how Jimbo's page has been managed this entire time, until Mr. "BANNED MEANS BANNED" bulled his way into the china shop? Tarc (talk) 12:25, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Jimbo can unblock you if it ever comes to that. We've had the battle where somebody undid a Jimbo block, but not one where someone redid a Jimbo unblock. That will be quite the entertaining thread. I'm looking forward to it next week. --DHeyward (talk) 22:36, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Arbitrary break: "Don't be a jerk" reprise

I am uncertain as to whether banning from Jimbo's open talk page / forum is within the proper purview of the Arbitration Committee. There appears to be no evidence of Jimbo seeking any such interaction ban in the case, nor does it appear there is a reasonable basis for such an interaction ban. In all of ArbCom history I did not find any similar sanction where a page asserted by its "userspace manager" to be an "open forum" has had one particular participant dismissed by the committee rather than by the person directly affected. Perhaps this is simply a recurrence of the "Gordian knot" solutions proposed in several cases, but I suggest it makes a wondrously horrendous precedent. (Note: I have disagreed with Tarc in the past - notably on the sophomoric and puerile "Dick essay" editing). Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:54, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

I raised this point as well at the case page but it was ignored, IMO it is one of the silliest aspects of the case. Also, for what it's worth, I recanted my opposition to a name change at meta earlier this summer. Tarc (talk) 13:01, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

The last time anyone tried to change the name of the essay was in 2006. The result, based on 4 support and 6 oppose, was "speedy keep", closed by Jdforrester. But why was this discussion taking place on Meta? —Neotarf (talk) 13:46, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

There was no opposition on Meta any more, and frankly Meta is the place where discussions of Meta files are held. Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:52, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Judging by the current comments, looks like there's opposition now. And, um, WP:DICK. —Neotarf (talk) 13:56, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Implicitly or explicitly calling people dicks is a dick-move: don't use this essay as a justification to do so. And of curse we should also have WP:CUNT, WP:FUCKHEAD etc. Not. Collect (talk) 14:05, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Why do we have essays that promote genitalia-based personal attacks? Seems like it just gives certain people an excuse to type a bunch of inflammatory language, and drives serious contributors from the project. —Neotarf (talk) 14:13, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

I think you two are essentially on the same side of this issue, it looks like you got off on the wrong foot somehow. Collect had wanted to soften much of the language in that article a few years ago, which at the time I was opposed to. The discussion about it is taking place on meta becuase despite appearances, that is where the article actually resides. WP:DICK is what's called a soft redirect to that. Tarc (talk) 15:05, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm amazed that nobody picked up on "soft redirect"... Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:41, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Check again. See Wikipedia:Don't be a dick. Is there any reason the title should not be changed to "jerk"? —Neotarf (talk) 15:20, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Addendum; ahh, I see the confusion. Some user make it into its own a wiki page last month. I am reverting that, as the meta redir has been in place for years, and IMO would need discussion to remove. Tarc (talk) 15:21, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Users have been complaining about for years, saying it is offensive. Is there a policy-based rationale for the change? Wasn't there some new language added to meta's inclusiveness policy lately? —Neotarf (talk) 15:39, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Patellar reflex in action at Meta. From an editor who seems to think his stance = consensus after the discussion already held there. Collect (talk) 16:54, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Is anyone going to start this RFC? Or provide a link to the meta HR stuff so someone else can start it? In case there is any question, I once opined on the subject here. —Neotarf (talk) 13:47, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Sweet jesus. It's all I'm going to say at this point. 2601:1:C080:EEF:5B7:1ED:CB31:857C (talk) 14:18, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Or you could, y'know, go and write an article instead of wasting everybody's time on meta aspects of the project's meta aspects. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:20, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps people would find the atmosphere more conducive to article writing if the project's rules weren't couched in terms of the male anatomy, Mitch. You, presumably, have a penis, and I certainly know that I do. Why does the project have to talk about our penises in order to get the point across that people should be cordial? Tarc (talk) 03:30, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

It's not a rule, it's an essay. 2601:1:C080:EEF:89DD:87B9:45FB:51B9 (talk) 14:58, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

It is pretty much the project's founding principle, given how many people cite it. The message is sound, it just could use a bit of wordsmithing. Tarc (talk) 15:01, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Monument to Wikipedia

For your reading pleasure: "Polish town to have monument honoring Wikipedia".--v/r - T P 22:13, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Are those figures genderless or castrati? Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 02:49, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Southpark called them cissies. --DHeyward (talk) 10:06, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Judging by the statue, pl.wp must be all male, or at least they want to keep it that way. —Neotarf (talk) 13:13, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

They are also clearly ageist and fat-phobic. I'm telling mom! Carrite (talk) 16:04, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Seriously, if he wants to do this Wikipedia-proper, he should post the data for 3D printing under a free license, we can all modify it as we please, then have an RFC to see who wins... :) Wnt (talk) 16:14, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Well, they're allegorical, so they don't have to be anything (as in, being everything), except allegorical. Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:23, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Just so long as were all completely naked while we're creating it... :-) SteveBaker (talk) 16:44, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

But seriously folks. Others pointed out narrow hips and broad shoulders indicated male. The lack of anatomical precision did confuse me a bit. But this is Catholic Poland. Not Dutch Amsterdam or Venice Italy. So of course they aren't going to show the explicit sexual details. Perhaps the Wikipedia Powers that Be could write a nice letter explaining how they should have at least one woman in there? That would be really great! Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 17:59, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

The artist can do as he pleases. Perhaps he's stating that there's no such thing as a male or female Wikipedian. If so? then the artist is being accurate. GoodDay (talk) 18:11, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

First, I thought it was going up a year from now, but it's this October, so a bit late. But hopefully they have or will have a plaque mentioning women editors. Actually, it's probably best that Polish Wikipedia women editors approach whom so ever. So left post on their Gender studies page and the article talk page itself. My duty is done here. :-) Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 19:08, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Update: According to someone from Polish Wikipedia this is an original model which shows a couple women, but they don't know what it will be or what the plague will be til they see the actual statue unveiled.Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 19:53, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

So isn't this representation of the puzzle-piece ball a copyright/trademark violation? The Wikipedia logo not CC BY-SA or whatever. SteveBaker (talk) 17:16, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Haven't you edited before? The "puzzle-piece ball" is an illusion for motivation. It's really the boulder of Sisyphus. --DHeyward (talk) 20:25, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

FYI that "someone from Polish Wikipedia" is actually someone from English Wikipedia. Me, to be precise. :) Anyway, be sure to {{ping}} me should you need any help. //Halibu tt 20:58, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

(This is addressed to the original poster.) Krzysztof Wojciechowski described himself as being "ready to drop to [his] knees before the Wikipedia", and that sounds like idolatry, even if the human figures are anatomically bowdlerized. (Psalm 97: 7)

—Wavelength (talk) 15:02, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Presumably a monument to wikipedia will have boxes of chisels and plastering equipment so that passers-by can fix the gender issue later, {{Sofixit}}. --SB_Johnny | ^talk✌ 15:18, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Banning Policy closed

An arbitration case with regards to the Banning Policy, has now closed and the final decision is available at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted:

For actions discussed within this case, as well as past history of disruption for which he has been sanctioned, Tarc (talk · contribs) is subject to an indefinite editing restriction. Tarc may not edit any administrative noticeboards, nor User talk:Jimbo Wales, aside from the normal exceptions.

Tarc (talk · contribs) is prohibited from reinstating edits or comments that were made or apparently made by a banned user and were reverted for that reason by another editor, regardless of any exception to the applicable policy that might otherwise apply. He is also admonished for disrupting Wikipedia to make a point, particularly since he continued even after the disruption was apparent. Tarc is warned that he is likely to be blocked for a long time and/or banned from the project, without further warning, if he does this sort of thing again.

Smallbones (talk · contribs) is warned to refrain from edit warring and needlessly inflammatory rhetoric in the future. Further instances of similar misconduct may result in serious sanctions.

Hell in a Bucket (talk · contribs) is warned to refrain from edit warring and needlessly inflammatory rhetoric in the future. Further instances of similar misconduct may result in serious sanctions.

For the Arbitration Committee, → Call me Hahc21 17:38, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Discuss this

Carriearchdale revisited

Carrie was given an indefinite ban a few months ago, although she had a significant number of edits (10s of thousands) and no prior warnings, etc. I am not trying to relitigate, however do think it was a mistake. My core point I was hoping to raise was about the culture of paid editing, and how people who call out paid editors are publicly attacked (I can't resist making the extreme comparison of the fact that raped girls are flogged for accusing their rapists in sharia society.)

I was a collaborator with her many months earlier, and I had advocated for her when we had simultaneous ANIs against an abusive editor. After Carrie was expelled, I was accused of being a meatpuppet of hers, which is how I got dragged into the sad story after the fact.

I reached out to Carrie offline, and she told me she had written proof of paid editing, but could not use it without outing another editor. Thus the awesome culture of anonymity also shields people from having evidence against paid editing. There was a small group of people who in 48 hours succeeded in vilifying and expelling Carrie.

I think Carrie is better off staying away from Wikipedia, although Wikipedia is not better without her. She is way to earnest in her belief for fact and honesty, and is too easily baited into conflicts with bad actors. But this is not my central suggestion.

At the core, the administrators are the people who are arbitrating these issues. It is almost impossible to get tossed out of Wikipedia unless you guilty of creating too much trouble. My humble suggestion is for two small changes to policy:

1. That no editor with significant contributions can get indefinitely blocked without a cooling off period. 2 days is too fast, and allows a small cabal to dominate a dialog.

2. The administrators be somehow certified to not be paid editors, or should not contribute to administrative discussions of paid editing. Maybe a simple online form signed by admins saying "I do not get paid for editing, and take seriously conflicts of interest."

I love Wikipedia, but this was a mob assassination, even without trying to relitigate the errors made by Carrie as well. Bob the goodwin (talk) 23:11, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

A link to the 'mob assassination'. [1] Better described as a clear and unambiguous decision by the community that a 'contributor' that repeatedly asserts that another person is a paid editor, while refusing to present any evidence, is unwelcome. She had ample opportunities to either provide the evidence (privately if necessary), or to withdraw the allegation. She did neither. That alone would be sufficient reason for a block. As the ANI thread makes clear though, there were serious long-running competence issues involved too. And as for your comparison with rape victims, anyone with an iota of sensitivity would realise just how utterly obnoxious that is. If you wish to argue for changes in policy, I suggest you do so on better grounds than this, if you want to be taken seriously, rather than be mistaken for a troll or a meatpuppet. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:31, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, Andy. I know you genuinely feel the case was handled correctly. I believe I raised legitimate issues, and did not assert that Carrie was guiltless. I would have preferred you had not attacked me, and focused on the issue at hand (which is called ad hominem). I think you were so busy saying Carries is bad, that you missed the question I raised, and thus inadvertently made the circular argument that the process must be right because the process made a decision. Since any decision is therefore "clear and unambiguous", the process cannot be accused of making an error.

The decision was too fast, and further was influenced largely by the same group of people that was involved in the original dispute, and then two of those people came after me for association with Carrie many months before the dispute. Thus my assertion is that the decision was tainted, even if I believe that Carrie handled it poorly (she would not back down, and took the flogging). I do not think the rape accusation analogy is obnoxious, as I think the rape accuser was flogged for making an accusation without have three male eye-witnesses, which is very much the same as what happened to Carrie. I was hurt by your 'troll' or 'meatpuppet' accusations (I know you made them as rhetorical accusations, but they still sting), I have raised clear policy questions and brought genuine opinion to the table. So I politely ask you to at least acknowledge that you have no evidence of me being a troll or a meat-puppet. I think you should debate the issue at hand, rather than focusing on me (I am not sure which policy Wikipedia uses to say not to attack people and stick to the points, but I think the general policy framework boils down to "don't be a" person who is being unkind to others who are trying to improve the project.)

Lastly, Carrie was never offered the opportunity to present evidence off the record. She was hounded immediately for making an unfair accusation. You can still go and ask her off the record for the hard-copy evidence, but she has no intention of outing anyone, she just wanted blatant and dumb paid advocacy to stop in a particular case. I did not investigate the competency issues, but I don't think you block people for competency issues after the first complaint. So I think that issue is a red herring, and may not even be accurate.

Regarding being taken seriously, I am not sure that is my point. My point is to be a genuine voice for the benefit of the project. Keep Carrie blocked, if that is best, she did seem uncompromising to me, and I would have handled the situation very differently. But don't block productive editors within 48 hours for refusing to back down on accusations of paid editing. Or not. I am just one very small voice in the community. Bob the goodwin (talk) 01:06, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Lets get this straight - you compare Wikipedia contributors to people who flog raped girls for accusing their rapists, and then complain about 'ad hominems'? Truly pathetic... AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:17, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

I said nothing about Wikipedia editors. Please keep your facts straight. I was discussing the decision to ban someone for making an accusation without having three male witnesses, editors neither make rules nor ban people. I personally thought the accusation looked reasonable purely based on the editing history of the person being accused, even without the photocopied document she claims to have in her possession. And I suppose she might have been lying, and the ban may have been reasonable for her being inflexible. But the issue I was raising was banning a serious contributor within 48 hours for making an accusation of paid editing, and sticking to that claim.Bob the goodwin (talk) 02:47, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

You said nothing about Wikipedia editors? Really? "I can't resist making the extreme comparison..." Who were you comparing to whom then? As for Carriearchdale's 'photocopied document', why should anyone believe for one moment that it exists? AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:08, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

I was comparing the act of punishing an accuser with an act of punishing an accuser. This is a relatively straightforward comparison, and I am not sure why you are trying to make it personal. As for "why should anyone believe", I think you are again trying to deflect the discussion from the act of flogging accusers to whether the accusation was witnessed by three men. Bob the goodwin (talk) 04:55, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Meh, I don't think her behavior is incorrigible, and to be honest, I prefer a topic ban to problematic areas to be favorable over complete blocking of the site. While an editor may intolerable in one topic area, and preferable in the next, eliminating that bad topic area where they seem to have issues staying neutral or otherwise have behavioral misconduct I think is better than a full on block. In this case, Carrie seems to have done opposition research to infer that an editor is a paid editor. That was unacceptable and should not have happened and seems to stick to her guns when it was in question that the editor was not a paid editor. The indefinite block was per community consensus and applied correctly; but I believe that maybe after a few months in the penalty box I hope she'd learned her lesson regarding it. But all in all, I don't think it's unreasonable to consider unblocking. She'd probably be unblocked with the restriction of being banned from asserting that any user is a paid editor, with or without supposed 'evidence' on site. If she can't keep to that restriction, reblocks are cheap. Tutelary (talk) 01:49, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Why do you assume she did opposition research? She told me that it was given to her by a person she was obliged to keep annonymous. So the block was based on the assumption of opposition research? Again, I am not really interested in defending her, as she was inflexible. I am just trying to get the logic straight. It is okay to block somebody for making an accusation, because making an accusation implies you did opposition research? Let me get your second point straight, it is only okay to be an editor if you promise never to make a claim of paid editing, whether it is provably true or not? Bob the goodwin (talk) 02:47, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

The off wiki stuff is what I'm referring to as 'opposition research', though I should've probably clarified that I'm using that in the sense of looking for evidence of paid editing when there's not any evidence; Confirmation bias is a thing, too. For the 2nd point, that's the only way that she'd be unblocked; given that that's the reason she's been indeffed in the first place. Tutelary (talk) 02:55, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

I think there is something fundamental I am missing here, and perhaps I am taking the rules too literally. Perhaps she was kicked out for being a dick, because paid editing is a rule in the same sense that the NCAA prohibits paid football play, i.e. not enforceable, but there needs to be a semblance of trust in the integrity of the product, so we need to seem to try to have standards, but we would rather no-one rock the boat?Bob the goodwin (talk) 02:47, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

"I reached out to Carrie offline, and she told me she had written proof of paid editing, but could not use it without outing another editor." — Of course, this has been one of the prime arguments advanced by those like myself who think banning paid editing is impossible. You can choose the Cult of Anonymity (and anti-outing rules) or you can choose banning paid editing — but you can't have both. Anonymity wins. Carrite (talk) 02:52, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

I love your point, and I am all in. thanks. I am more of a rules person who prefers transparency (my name really is Bob Goodwin, and really do barely know Carrie). And I totally understand that this is not my Wikipedia, so I either agree to the terms or I don't. Wikipedia is anonymous. But that leads directly to the question I asked. Why do we have to flog paid advertiser accusers, when we freely allow people to make accusations of socketry and trollism? (apologies to my friend Andy whose tender sensibilities are offended my this metaphor, but I still think it is intellectually honest.)Bob the goodwin (talk) 03:01, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Carrie's ban given her contribution history and previous lack of blocks was entirely unjust (I was one of a small handful at ANI that tried to stop her boomerang lynching). She absolutely needs to get off her "anti-paid editing" bandwagon; to deal with the edits, not the editor — recognizing that WMF's new anti-paid editing TOS rules are completely unenforceable malarkey and that she made an error by thinking that anything had changed because San Francisco decided to say so. Mind the edits, not the editor. She needs to not only understand this, but convey this in a ban appeal, and then once back to really, truly never go this route again against those with whom she disagrees in the editing process. Carrie's was one of the most idiotic and counterproductive lynchings at ANI in recent memory. It's gonna take some work getting that terrible decision reversed, however. Carrite (talk) 14:39, 12 October 2014 (UTC) Last edit: Carrite (talk) 14:44, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

My impression was that she was not going to appeal, and is working successfully with the simple English Wikipedia and adding value. I think there is a pride issue on both sides. While I agree that both sides were counterproductive and idiotic (sorry Carrie, and Wikipedia, I love you both), I doubt anyone is terribly interested in fixing this, except perhaps me because I have an desire to have editors like me an carrie feel welcome, and we don't. But moving beyond that lost cause, I still think that there should have been a cooling off period to slow the lynching and allow all sides to come to terms with the facts on the ground. Which was the essence of my suggestion. We can't fix Carrie, but we can prevent the next one.Bob the goodwin (talk) 20:00, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Following the principles of "withholding evidence", I would think an editor with evidence of astroturfing on Wikipedia should feel obligated to disclose it. It is hard to imagine a circumstance where it is impossible to do so while following our principles of privacy and anonymity, through redacted names, private communications, generalized title descriptions, and so on. It's worth noting that I am a paid editor, but I also contribute anonymously and this isn't generally problematic. CorporateM (Talk) 00:04, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Ayn Rand - How is this still a thing? (restored)

I'm a big fan of John Oliver, and particularly enjoyed this video (linked below) about Civil Asset Forfeiture in the US. Thanks for the link to the Ayn Rand one as well.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 11:12, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

To the one who removed my message: you're right, this has nothing to do with the site Wikipedia. Instead, it has to do with Jimmy Wales, which is why I posted it here: on his talk page, not on Wikipedia's talk page. If Jimmy disapproves (and he might), he should remove the message himself. (video length: 3.40; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_8m8cQI4DgM). --Cei Trei (talk) 18:52, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Wow, what a totally non-objective video. Not a single logical argument in there and full of name calling. Waste of time to watch. Nyth83 (talk) 19:39, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

It's meant to be entertaining, not informative. How much time did you waste watching that? Three minutes and forty seconds. That's not a lot of time, even for an engineer like yourself. --Cei Trei (talk) 21:42, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

But it was not entertaining. It is just a bashing video. Watching a lunar eclipse is not informative either but it was more entertaining than that video. I have read both The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged and I don't quite "get" objectivism, but I just don't enjoy watching name-calling. Not my idea of fun. Sorry. Nyth83 (talk) 21:55, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

I found it entertaining and thought I'd share. I'm sorry you were so disturbed by the name-calling. "I do not think they have any right to live in a country merely because they were born here and acted and lived like savages." Ayn Rand on Native Americans. --Cei Trei (talk) 01:57, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

I wasn't disturebed so much as saddened. I learned 35 years ago when I was is high school that name-calling is the last resort of the intellectually bankrupt. When you can no longer explain or persuade you are basically admitting that you are wrong. It's like children on a playground, Oh, Yeah, well you're stupid! I'm not gonna be your friend anymore. Nyth83 (talk) 16:16, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Name-calling is an efficient way of making your argument. I believe Demosthenes and Cicero proved that a long time ago. However, at times, name-calling is uncalled for; such as when Rand referred to Native Americans as savages. That's also name-calling, isn't it? Or perhaps that's what saddened you! --Cei Trei (talk) 16:58, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

I don't agree with a lot of what Rand had said, but there is difference between name-calling and group labeling. Me calling you a douchebag would NOT be an an effcient agument. Can you provide a citation or Wikilink to dispute that? Nyth83 (talk) 17:39, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes, there's a big difference between name-calling and group labeling such as the one Rand used: the latter is far more serious and evil. You simply calling me a douche might not be an efficient argument unless you provide a justification for your insult; however, Cicero's Philippics remain a milestone in name-calling argumentation. --Cei Trei (talk) 18:20, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

I thought it was pretty funny, actually, but I'm a commie and posting a link here is trolling... Carrite (talk) 02:32, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

If you are a "commie", then you must not understand Marx. Nyth83 (talk) 16:16, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm a commie and understand every word Marx said in that video! AnonNep (talk) 16:41, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Oh THAT kind of commie. I misunderstood you. Nyth83 (talk) 17:39, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

So you know Harpo Marx but you don't know John Oliver, is that what you're saying? Carrite (talk) 02:47, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Meh, despite the accent, John Oliver lacks the intellect to discern Ayn Rand. it's sort of like laughing at Idiocracy but not quite knowing what you are laughing at. --DHeyward (talk) 08:14, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Excuse me for intruding in your sub-discussion; you guys are smarter than I am...will you be willing to explain your esoteric messages to me? In doing so, you'll make me happy--and even though my happiness won't benefit you, I think you have enough altruism in you to edify the poor layman. --Cei Trei (talk) 14:26, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Here's my main message. JW is (rightly or wrongly) believed by many to be a Randian. It was bad form, verging on trolling, to post a link to a anti-Rand political humor video (funny or not) on this particular page. That's not a particularly esoteric concept, is it? Carrite (talk) 14:49, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Right, that's what I thought you meant, but I was a bit unsure. JW is a randian, that much is known, so it's not up to us to believe whether he is one or not. I just thought I'd post it here because he might find it interesting. --Cei Trei (talk) 15:21, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Link to video - I had to put it down here because it seems to break the template.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 11:15, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Supermarket vs, Wikipedia

So when someone works in a supermarket, he is obliged to answer any questions asked remotely politely, and unless he does so, he will be fired by his employer.

In the Wikipedia World, an employee, i.e. administrator can circumvent that duty, simply block his talk page and prevent having to answer genuine and justified questions concerning his behaviour.

That's quite a discrepancy, a gap and a mismatch compared to the "normal" and "accepted" behaviour in a civilized society.

So my question: Why do you think "your" officials can get away with this kind of "ignorant" behaviour and at the same time, all those users who are encumbering about this type of incumbering behaviour are deemed to be "trolls", being blocked out and bad-mouthed?--37.230.11.254 (talk) 06:51, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Because they're not employees. DeCausa (talk) 07:00, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

What are they, then? And does that, whatever it is, free them from behaving like normal human beings?--37.230.11.254 (talk) 07:15, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

They are volunteers, operating under Wikipedia Policies and Guidelines. -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 07:17, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Think of it as a club of hobbyists (I.e. anyone who edits Wikipedia). The hobbyists ask some of their number to deal with any of the club members who behave badly. To do that they entrust them with the keys of the clubhouse in case any of the ones who have behaved badly need to be locked out. Those are the admins (more or less). No one's got a "job" here. DeCausa (talk) 07:26, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

So, hobbyists and volunteers aren't obliged to behave like normal human beings, being asked polite questions about questionable behaviour by themselves and they have the right to erase those questions, just because they are what they are, hobbyists and volunteers?--37.230.11.254 (talk) 07:30, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Have you read Wikipedia Policies and Guidelines? -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 07:35, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes, but what do they say (in your opinion)?--37.230.11.254 (talk) 07:41, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

I summarise them in my head as "Don't be a dick" ! -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 07:46, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

So you are getting on my page that every user should not be a dick by erasing genuine and polite questions on their talk page while continuing to behave overly ignorant to the questions of the community?--37.230.11.254 (talk) 07:57, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

I've no idea. You don't appear to have a page, so I can't say. -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 13:45, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

A lot of people tossing around guidelines, including admins, pick and choose them as they please and often misquote them or don't fully understand them; to many of them WP:Don't be a dick applies all too well but they rarely have a sense of self-criticism. Simplistic one-guideline misreadings are rife; and ANIs are a bearpit where bullies show up out of nowhere, thirsting for blood. I'm not the only one who feels this way, including many who haven't yet been subjected to the carnage. The illogic and nastiness I encountered, while being bad-mouthed and even lied about, I won't get into. But suffice to say you're not alone, IP 37.230.11.254, in your opinion of tthe conduct of such "volunteers". Those who enjoy rules and enjoy enforcing them even more are attracted by the powers of an adminship, and do little else than wiki-cop type activities once they have it. That the Fifth Pillar says "there are no rules" is completely lost on them; and in fact rule-fans have written ~~WP:There are no rules~~ - that wasn't what I was thinking of; Wikipedia:Ignore all rules is to annotate the very simple Fifth and most neglected and disrespected Pillar that so it means something quite different from its intent, and even its very simple form; endless emendation and instruction creep by those who need to contain such a license to be maverick and non-conform when circumstances of content require it. The in-group out-group nature of "volunteers" here is infamous, which is why there's so many sites out there of ex-Wikipedians criticizing the place...and note much of what's in WP:EXR. [post edit-conflict] per your last remark, they also have a fondness for closing discussions on topics they have no knowledge of, and haven't even fully read the comments, only counted the "votes" (even though WP:Wikipedia is not a democracy, and being snippy towards those who do know the topic, when facts fail personal criticisms are made, including NPA and AGF when it's them that displayed that first.Skookum1 (talk) 08:02, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

I fully comply. The worst thing of all is that those who deem themselves to be "volunteers" are the ones who are dominating our society and their view on almost any topic which they don't even have a remote clue about...--37.230.11.254 (talk) 08:07, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

So you had the delete-and-insult treatment too huh? All too familiar....Skookum1 (talk) 12:25, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Why do you assume that? This looks like a blocked or banned editor, probably for good reasons (unless you think most blocks and bans aren't justified). Dougweller (talk) 12:31, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

ROTFL, no Doug, it IS me; I'll send you an email to prove it. I mean what I said; and won't get into naming who and providing links, suffice to say that all the IP user's comments jibe with not only what I know, but with other Wikipedians and I have discussed and have experienced first-hand. Uppitiness and a refusal to talk, and an eagerness for the killswitch to silence dissent or having to answer for illogics and guideline/policy-misreadings...or for downright nastiness made in the course of hounding me - and others. I came back because of some sillinesses I noted, and for certain mechanical edits I come across.... I'm trying to stay out as much as I can as I have to spend my writing time towards profitable writing and "freeing my tongue" from the constraints of wiki content-style, and also spend more time seeing to the rest of the real world and my own life. But to see Idle No More being POV-vandalized again prompted me to take down my wikibreak notice; other Wikipedians have begged me to come back, despite the bullshit I've had shoved down my throat - since coming back after a long break because of POV vandalism on that very same article...which is now protected again and like many political articles really has to be permanently. Similar POV/COI intervenors on Talk:Mount Polley mine disaster combined with harassment demands by yet another block-happy admin had me go JFI (just fuck it) and get my blood pressure down and clear my head of wikipedia's endless backroom squabbling and nitpicking. This IP user's comments resonated strongly with me, as to many of those on WP:EXR and other pages, and in looking up the things that caused WP:List of missing Wikipedians. This place isn't very good at looking in the mirror, not good at taking criticism of the "standards of the community", so much so that you have to name-call and allege something like that I must be a sock. Childish deletions and imperious edit comments of questions, even of olive branches, have indeed occurred; I don't wish to open old issues here, if you want to know who and when inbox me.Skookum1 (talk) 12:45, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

DW: unless you think most blocks and bans aren't justified. Well I know for certain that all of those levelled against me weren't. Even the very first one's retraction comment is false; I had made no threat, but had told a story about having been threatened; nothing could sum up "punish the victim" than that; and others since were contrary to consensus or unachieved consensus in current ANIs...and ANIs were launched against me with invective, improper personality attacks, and outright lies and distortions that I had done this or that. Ad hoc admin behaviour, and comments made against me personally by people I've never even heard or seen before were trotted out; as they had also been in the RMs and CfDs that wound up seeing them launched against me (because my nominations were 80% passing by consensus, to overturn arbitrary BOLDs done en masse... I won't go on, it's old ground, it's not why I came back. But the adminship wears no mantle of wisdom in my books; rather the opposite. Lots of contributing editors feel the same way, and some individual admins too. Scanning this page I note other incivilities from people pontificating on the "Unwanted" or unwashed or whatever; I wno't bother listing them, I have articles to write and improve; people who frequent the bearpits more than they write articles - "lurkers" - should be contribution-limited in procedural discussions, so their biases and laager mentality don't trainwreck more discussions with bad ideas, guideline misreadings, and outright nastiness and/or stubbornness.; but reform seems impossible......so, again, given my own experience, what I've seen of discussions about others now banned or blocked and or just gotten fed up and left, y'all should be asking what it is that provokes the kind of behaviour that causes you to "have" to spend so much time purging Wikipedia of dissent? The justifications used to block me were all anti-policy and anti-truthful on each occasion, in one case blatantly partisan (the "Harper government" AfDs); I have no doubt that others have been hounded, then blocked, in the same way; calling them "socks" (or calling me a sock of myself, was it?) when smething is said you don't want to hear..... no further comment, I hadn't meant to go on this long.Skookum1 (talk) 13:13, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Solution: Go to the Supermarket and ask them about Wikipedia. Chances are they will know more than you. Good luck and don't forget to tip. --DHeyward (talk) 08:22, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Solution: call a troll a troll when you see one....and you are one. Snotty comments like this about people with legitimate grievances are one of the worst sides to the so-called "CIVIL" mandate here; speak softly while being a snide dick in the course of dumping on the person with the grievance; predictable and boring.Skookum1 (talk) 08:27, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Please read your above posts with an introspective eye as you less than gracefully ask of others to do. There was nothing snotty about my comments to someone that obviously has experience with wikipedia ans is complaining about level of service from volunteers and comparing it to supermarket clerks "duty." Please note that nothing was directed at you or your questions or your issues. I am civil but also unsympathetic to your plight. Good luck to you in finding peace. --DHeyward (talk) 09:33, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

It didn't make any difference...

As a follow-up to this discussion,[2] here it is two-and-one-half months later and I am quitting Wikipedia. I announced it at WikiProject:Editor Retention,[3] Jimbo Wales, if you care. (Though Eric Corbett is involved, so you might want to stay away.) Lightbreather (talk) 01:47, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm not really involved in this discussion other than my single comment, but I was lurking in it. I believe that you should read the near end of Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Editor_Retention#Been_thinking_of_quitting, then Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Editor_Retention#What_it_boils_down_to, and then read Lightbreather's last section at the bottom, for context. Tutelary (talk) 01:51, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

For the record, Lightbreather's implication that a particular editor is responsible for their retirement is false. Everyone following the noticeboards has seen LB's frequent comments over the last few months—comments that have falsely accused certain editors of personal attacks, and comments which have not gathered more than a tiny support at any of the forums tried. Johnuniq (talk) 03:09, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Johnuniq, I have been harassed and attacked but response at the notice boards has been divided (not "tiny.") More importantly, there is small but powerful group that believes the civility policy is ridiculous, and they defend their “valued contributors" from blocks. For the record, yes: Eric Corbett is one of the primary reasons that I am leaving. Lightbreather (talk) 13:54, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

The same Eric Corbett has been a primary reason why I am staying. I decided that I - not other people - decide about leaving or staying. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:09, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

If you're gonna chip at her — and you shouldn't — at least sign your stuff. —Carrite (talk) 14:45, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Jesus Christ....If a little ole swear gets your panties in a bunch (or your undies in a knot) then by all means, leave. Some may swear just to get a rise out of you. Why give them the satisfaction?

Lightbreather, so far (and without looking) I have found your "announcements" that you are quitting on the Talkpage on the GGTK ArbCom Evidence page [4] (Section header "I am quitting"), on the Editor Retention Talk page [5], here on Jimbo's talk page, and yes on your own talk page. Anyone would think you were trying to make maximum "political" capital out of your "quitting".DeCausa (talk) 14:34, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

For the record, I am a woman and a feminist and after several years of editing and missing the sort of friendly discussions that I have with my friends (all feminists, of course, including the men), I found Eric's talk page and have watched it ever since. I have found Eric and his friends to be the most intelligent, hardest working, least bigoted, and very important to me, the most fun-loving group I've seen on Wikipedia. Gandydancer (talk) 14:36, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

DeCausa, one could think that, yes. In my case, here's how it happened: I was involved in discussions at Editor Retention when I decided to quit, so I announced it there. Then Eric Corbett decided to leave this message [6] as a parting gift. That made me decide that I would take time to add evidence about him at the GGTF arbcom, but after doing that, I thought I ought to let participants there know that I am leaving. My own page? I think that's pretty typical - besides, somone at Editor Retention suggested it. Here? Of all it's the most likely to be "political" (as you put it), but since I took the time to tell Jimbo, at the end of July, how harassed and attacked I felt by the rampant incivility at Wikipedia, it seemed only fitting to tell him now that despite the lengthy discussions here and elsewhere, nothing had really changed. Think what you will, but that's how the announcements transpired. Lightbreather (talk) 14:48, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

That Eric Corbett is still allowed to edit Wikipedia is a clear governance failure.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 15:05, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Actually, it is a reflection of community consensus, with which you do not happen to agree. Carrite (talk) 17:34, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

That is indeed a reflection of "community consensus" as expressed at the noticeboards by the editors who frequent the noticeboards. In the absence of a survey of the opinions of the larger community, and the WMF has the resources to conduct such a survey, it is not known what the actual consensus of the larger community is on civility and its enforcement. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:48, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Given the depth and duration of your feeling on this matter, I am surprised that you didn't start an RFC/U against Eric rather than going the backdoor route of going to ArbCom with a case ostensibly about the Gender Gap Task Force. It is highly disingenuous to intimate that community noticeboards are unrepresentative but then to appeal to an even more narrow group for a decision more to your liking. Fortunately, having snorted through the evidence a bit today, there doesn't seem to be anything Eric has done in connection with that particular case that rises to the level of sanctions. Carrite (talk) 23:00, 14 October 2014 (UTC) Last edit: Carrite (talk) 23:10, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

I heard "governance", I heard "toxic personalities" before. My English is limited but both terms don't belong in my concept of a free encyclopedia, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:53, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

I do speak English as a first language and my concept of 'content creators' doesn't meet that of lauded editors who summarise non-academic popular histories (or slim academic journal articles) through to so-called 'Featured Articles' then patrol them as if they're made of gold but, hey, yeah, this is a 'free encyclopedia'. AnonNep (talk) 19:02, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Is there actually any chance that you could stop pontificating about civility on Wikipedia, whilst in the next sentence being incivil to a Wikipedia editor who you have banned from your talk page and thus can't reply? The word "hypocrisy" looms very large here. Black Kite (talk) 19:20, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Comment on Announcement

On the one hand, I think that Lightbreather is drama-mongering. On the other hand, I think that Lightbreather is correct that there is a small cadre that believes that the civility policy is ridiculous and restrictive, and protects those who have reputations as excellent content creators from blocks. I have said here in the recent past that, if the WMF actually wants to enhance civility, it needs to take some sort of action, because the enforcement of civility by the English Wikipedia "community" is not consistent with the objectives of the WMF. As Carrite notes below, the WMF has resources. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:02, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

But what I don't say below is that WMF resources should be invested in a professional Police of Civility (let's call them "the PC" for short). This entire issue is overblown. You are correct that Lightbreather is drama-mongering. It is the drama-mongers that are driving this entire issue, not the genuinely solid Wikipedians who can be jackasses from time to time when they get poked with a sharp stick... Carrite (talk) 17:38, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

WP:ANI Comment

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Black Kite (talk) 19:33, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

No, thank you.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 19:44, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Wikimedia Foundation's FY2013-14 financial report

WMF released their audited financial report for Fiscal Year 2013-2014 (ending June 30, 2014) yesterday. The pdf for the 14-page report may be found HERE. I was extremely surprised to see on page 9 what appears to be a new line item among the foundation's investments — "mortgage-based securities" — consisting of just over $6 million in value, or about a quarter of the foundation's total investments. Investment in corporate bonds has also nearly doubled over the previous fiscal year, to about $7 million. At the same time, investment in low-risk/low-return treasury securities and municipal bonds has fallen from over $9.6 million to about $7.9 million. I am not a financial analyst, but it appears to me that WMF's asset manager has made a decision to become more aggressive in investment strategy. My question is this: is this an appropriate strategy for a public charity — absorbing additional investment risk in an effort to achieve greater investment returns?

My second question, closely related and from the same page of the report, is this: even with the more aggressive investment strategy, WMF's net income on investments for FY2013-14 is stated as $243,000 on $23.26M invested — barely over 1%. What is the story here? Carrite (talk) 14:32, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

I think Garfield at the Foundation is better placed to answer specific questions about investment strategy. I will only comment on the high level philosophical question.

I think it can be a mistake to be either too conservative or too aggressive with investment strategy. We certainly do not want the Foundation to take wild risks (speculating on currency or investing the entire reserve in growth stocks or something like that). Nor should we want the Foundation to invest only in extremely low-paying assets.

Here is a typical discussion by nonprofit governance experts: "Good risk management with regard to an investment strategy requires the organization to balance three, sometimes-competing goals: 1) minimizing investment risk, 2) obtaining access to the funds when needed, and 3) earning a reasonable rate of return." Read more here

One important risk management principle is diversification. So having debt instruments of different classes (mortgage-backed, corporate, and government bonds) can reduce overall risk. As we put it: "If the asset values do not move up and down in perfect synchrony, a diversified portfolio will have less risk than the weighted average risk of its constituent assets, and often less risk than the least risky of its constituent." See Diversification (finance) for more details, including (if you have the stamina) some of the mathematics behind it.

Finally, another important principle in longterm asset management involves matching the timing of income to the timing of expenses. In our context, that can mean looking to a diversity of maturities. The risk on a zero coupon 30 year government bond can look substantial in the short run, but does guarantee (nearly so) a particular payoff at a particular time in 30 years. This last is only one example to highlight the principle - not a specific goal for our investment strategy. The principle is that we should have securities which mature in the short term, as well as securities which have longer maturities.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 14:49, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

I spent a few years working for an asset management firm. We specialized in asset management for insurance companies which are decidedly not charities, but many of the same principles apply. I'll echo what Jimbo said while differing on literally one word.

One important aspect of asset strategy involves monitoring the timing of income and expenses. The technical term used is "duration" which loosely speaking can be viewed as a timing metric. However, we emphasized duration management as opposed to duration matching. Duration matching (which is what Jimbo described) isn't necessarily the optimum strategy. Some departures from the matching strategy are acceptable. However, the larger context that analyzing the relative timing of income and expenses is exactly the right approach.--S Philbrick (Talk) 15:53, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm still not getting two things: (1) Why all of the sudden is WMF putting about a quarter of its chips into Mortgage-backed securities (regarded as the economic snake oil that caused the 2008 crisis)?; and (2) Why is net investment income on $23+M invested so paltry, particularly if a move has been made to more higher-risk/greater-reward investments? Who exactly at WMF could explain these things? Carrite (talk) 18:07, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

The investment policy - decided by the board - does bear some looking at. It looks like the results are consistent with blindly following that investment policy, but I would have hoped that the asset managers wouldn't have done something as (removed word) as investing in municipal bonds.

First you have to understand that there are $28M in cash equivalents (something over 6 months spending) that are not included under "investments." But this amount of cash yells out "super-conservative" right from the start. The table on p.9 shows

Fair Value of Investments

Fair value measurements at June 30, 2014 using significant other observable Description inputs (Level 2)
Certificates of deposit $ 2,157,598
Municipal bonds 4,039,187
Mortgage backed securities 6,032,385
U.S. Treasury securities 3,875,028
U.S. Corporate bonds 7,019,079
Other 137,369
Total $ 23,260,646

The $4M in municipal bonds is a huge red-flag. People invest in munis, despite the low returns, because the proceeds are exempt from Federal and (usually) state taxes. As a non-profit the WMF doesn't pay federal and state taxes. Somebody is asleep at the wheel on this one.

The $6 M in mortgage backed securities seems a bit high, but since mortgages are a huge part of the fixed income (debt) markets, it would seem reasonable to have some of this debt. Note that I'm not saying "mortgage backed derivative securities" There's no reason for those.

More later. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 18:36, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Given the discussions below, I just had to remove the word "stupid" above. My apologies. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 02:43, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Insurance companies report investment income including and excluding realized capitals gains. This statement did not say. If we assume that realized cap gains are either not in here, or not large, the question is whether the rate of return is reasonable. The next point to make is that one should not relate the investment income to ending assets. The better measure is average invested assets. Without access to that number, a rough surrogate is the average of the latest and prior years assets. The yield is still low, but that make it 1.2% rather than 1.0%

Now examine yields available (Vanguard is a good source):

Mortgage backed securities 1.43%
Intermediate term treasuries 1.62%
Cal Munies 1.52%
GNMA 0.21%
CD (not from Vanguard) 1.00%
Intermediate Corporates 3.13%

Not knowing the exact mix or securities makes the comparison iffy - I picked intermediate term, it may be that there is a mixture of short and intermediate term. Based on the available yields I would have expected more like 1.4%-1.6% so the 1.2% raises questions, but not the "what the hell are you doing" questions. I also see that they used to own a bunch of TIPS which they sold. TIPS have a very low yield, so depending on when they were sold may affect the yield quite a bit.

However, as already noted, this isn't the right venue for such a discussion, and you aren't really interested in my take, you want to hear from WMF, but having spent years doing this, I couldn't resist.--S Philbrick (Talk) 18:59, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

I share Smallbones' query re Munis. Why?--S Philbrick (Talk) 19:02, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Indeed. Municipal bonds pay a lower rate of return than corporate bonds because their interest is exempt from federal income tax and some state taxes, so that the net return to the investor is comparable to that of corporate bonds. As a 501(c)(3), the WMF does not pay federal income tax and probably does not pay state income tax. The investment in municipal bonds would appear to be a mistake. What is the explanation? Robert McClenon (talk) 19:45, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

As I have said, ask Garfield.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 19:46, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Garfield? Link? Ping? Carrite (talk) 23:14, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Garfield - to be clear, I'm not brushing you off. While I support fully a diversified investment strategy involving different maturities and different risk categories, I'm curious myself about the municipal bonds decision.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 23:17, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

This discussion should be continued somewhere else. There's too much nonsense on this page right now. To be clear, I don't think Garfield is doing anything but implementing the investment policy laid down by the board, and the board policy is what should be reviewed, as well as possibly the investment managers who actually run the money. Where's a good place? Smallbones_(smalltalk) 04:01, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

I appreciate the thinking in this thread, but I think it will be helpful to have some context and an update. When I arrived at the Foundation we were only investing in CD's. After being around for awhile, I realized that this strategy was too conservative and did a revision to the investment statement, which was reviewed by the Audit Committee, that allowed for investment in other short term 1-2 year maturity fixed income investments. I went looking for a firm that would handle the short term reserve fund at a reasonable cost and was only able to find Rockefeller & Company which was willing to do the investing and manage the portfolio for 25 basis points. I asked for a conservative portfolio, which they delivered and turned out to be too conservative. The portfolio was diversified by adding MBS and as noted the TIPS were removed from the portfolio. Around this time, an additional revision was done to the investment policy which was approved by the Board. In order to implement this revision of the investment policy, which included a long term reserve, an RFP for investment advisory services was issued and US Trust was selected. We are in the process now of moving the assets from Rockefeller & Co. to US Trust. With this change, I will need to select a target return for both the short term fund and the long term fund and the allocation to MBS will be reduced. So to respond to some the questions: Why Muni Bonds? Because I asked for a conservative portfolio and the manager making the selection of assets added Muni bonds to diversify the portfolio without adding risk. Why MBS? They are a diversifying asset class that adds diversification and return to the portfolio. Was the allocation to MBS overweight? Yes, it was a tactical allocation to take advantage of a favorable market. The situation has changed and the asset allocation to MBS is in the process of being reduced. Was I happy will the return of the portfolio? No, one of the reasons the old manager was not selected to continue on managing the short term reserve. As for where to have this conversation, please feel free to email me directly at gbyrd@wikimedia.org. Part of our agreement with US Trust is that I can publish the quarterly statements from US Trust as part of the monthly WMF report. So as you look at the statements, feel free to email with any thoughts or ideas. The other thing that is helpful is feedback on the target return for the short term fund and the long term fund. In this thread there was a suggestion of a target return of 1.4% to 1.6%, let me know given the duration of the short term fund, if you agree. I am also open to thoughts on the target return on the long term fund. Also, when talking about investments it is very helpful to me to cite your sources of your comments. Opinions are interesting, but when I work with a investment manager it is helpful to give them sample portfolios or articles on the topic in order to facilitate the discussion. For example, I would be interested in reading the sources for the comments "The $4M in municipal bonds is a huge red-flag" or MBS as a "more aggressive investment strategy". Thank you for your questions and if you have any additional questions please contact me directly.GByrd (WMF) (talk) 18:05, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

I've added a few wikilinks for the general reader, Garfield. If that's impertinent, feel free to revert.

Thank you for the links.GByrd (WMF) (talk) 18:57, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

This may interest onlookers: Wikimedia Foundation Investment Policy.

Garfield, are our donations being invested in tobacco, alcohol, gambling or fossil fuel companies? --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 01:23, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

I like cigars, beer, gambling, and gasoline. I don't want any support of the American war machine. The next person is gonna want to divest from companies doing business with Russia for their anti-gay policies. Or divesting from the Middle East for the treatment of women. Or divesting from China for their various human rights abuses. Next think ya know, WMF will own an 80% share in an organic soy bean farm in Canada which uses only rainwater collected by living wage workers and exchanges its products for fair trade handicrafts from Central America. (I'm tempted to make a joke about still being able to achieve a 1.1% rate of return in that situation, but I'll let it go.) Carrite (talk) 16:14, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

There are currently no restrictions on what type of companies the assets of the short term fund are invested in, so there may be tobacco, alcohol, gambling or fossil fuel companies among the holdings of the short term fund at any given point in time. As User:Carrite points out, there is currently no indicators for what is a community consensus on what a socially responsible portfolio looks like. If one day we do find a consensus, then I will be able to ask our fund managers to add a type of investment, such as green energy, or not invest in a company or sector as needed.GByrd (WMF) (talk) 18:57, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, Garfield. If we left the ethics of the WMF's investment choices up to the those who dominate the ethics discussions in this community, we'd be manufacturing sarin. It's really a decision for the board. I'd appreciate it if you would raise the option for their consideration at some point. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 22:28, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Apart from any other "socially responsible" investment issues, how about not investing in any countries where the government blocks or restricts access to Wikipedia? (I do not know whether there are any such investments currently.) Neutron (talk) 19:46, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

I've taken the discussion of municipal bonds to User talk: GByrd (WMF). Robert McClenon (talk) 16:37, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

To close the discussion on this page on the issue of municipal bonds, the reason for them in the portfolio beyond diversification is that in our case the average current yield of our municipal bonds is 2.79% versus the average current yield on our corporate bonds of 2.30%.GByrd (WMF) (talk) 19:09, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. In general, municipal bonds are not a good investment for a 501(c)(3), but in this case it appears that the research was done. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:48, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Jimbo...

I hope you'll take this as it's meant--that is, without too much rancor--but I think it's time for you to put up or shut up. I think the problem that (at least some) people are having with your issues with Eric is that, while you're talking about it, you're not actually doing anything about it. If you think Eric should be banned, don't just snark about it on your talk page: actually start a ban discussion on AN, or Arbcom case request, or whatever you think should be done. Because right now, at least from where I'm sitting, all it looks like is that you just want to take potshots at him from the sidelines (and, until this ANI thread, in a place where you forbade him from responding, which is hardly an open discussion), and you don't actually care about fixing this "failure of governance". If you really think this is a problem that needs solving, then it's time to get on your proverbial horse and ride: marshal your various arguments and diffs of evidence and start the discussion in the appropriate place (this talk page ain't it), just like any other editor. Stop talking and start doing. oh, and if you think that "well, I can't start it because I'm Jimbo, and people will think that Jimbo starting a discussion means it won't be fair to Eric"--well, snarking from the sidelines against him isn't much better, so why are you doing that? Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 20:21, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Writ Keeper, and I wish you would officially take a stand against EC's continued abuse and construct a ban proposal. He is poisoning our culture by encouraging unfathomable behavior, and an example needs to be made that this is not acceptable. Rationalobserver (talk) 20:25, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

I would love to have some assistance in doing that. I am hopeful that the Foundation will step in with a strong statement to the effect that abuse of other editors is not acceptable simply due to good or allegedly good content contributions. There is a huge error going on - the idea that good content contributions are so worthwhile that any kind of outrageous longterm abusive behavior is ok. The error is in ignoring what such behavior does to poison the community discourse and drive away good editors.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 20:31, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

I would love to see that, too. Jimbo, are you able to facilitate that in any way? Have you asked the Foundation to consider such a statement? St Anselm (talk) 20:37, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes, tonight.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 20:39, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Did Jimbo do something bad?Amanda Smalls 20:37, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

I don't think so. I did make the point that a particular editor with a long track record of abusive behavior should be banned. Such opinions are welcomed and a normal part of our discourse, but of course if I say it, it has the potential to great Great Drama. But I think that a wider conversation needs to be had about what kind of community we want to be.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 20:39, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

If that "wider conversation" is limited to the on-wiki environment without enforcing the Terms of Use, it will simply perpetuate the cycle of abuse against you and so many others. What other venues would you suggest for this "wider conversation"? -- Djembayz (talk) 12:31, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Those terms of use are so nebulous that they would make any conflict resolution or user conduct management way more difficult. e.g. defining what is "harassment" and at what point one blocks etc. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:45, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Hey Jimmy, you're in a bit of a Catch 22 with a great point here. Indeed, everything you say seems to be good fodder for Great Drama in the community, and, for the same reason, you're about the worst candidate to call people's attention to that fact. So, like it or not, I'm going to expound a bit on the subject.

A lot of Wikipedians probably think that being the founder of something like Wikipedia is all champagne, caviar, hobnobbing with world leaders and movie stars, etc. I'm sure you get your share of that, but I see some drawbacks. In fact, if I were given the chance, I think I'd pass myself. That's because I'm a very opinionated guy who cares deeply about the projects I work on. If my words carried so much weight, I'd have to be very careful where I was swinging them; I'd have to get used to holding my tongue on a lot of issues that I care about. This discussion is a pretty good example; editors express opinions on which other editors should be banned all the time, and they aren't accused of abuse or malicious intent. I'd want the same luxury, and, as you may or may not be aware, I already work very hard to maintain as much of that luxury as I can, despite my family situation.

But you've already got the Midas touch, whether you're putting your seal of approval on a new community initiative or reaching for your breakfast toast. And, at the risk of being called an asskiss (I've been called a lot worse by people who don't know me any better than most, if not all, people who so confidently call you nasty things on the order of "cunt" know you), you're clearly a very intelligent, opinionated guy. You get things that a lot of other people don't, and you see beyond the immediately obvious, as you did when putting your finger on the error in measuring an editor's contributions to bad behavior as a way to decide whether that editor should be allowed to continue misbehaving. I can only imagine what it's like to watch what you've seen grow from a glint in the eye to what Wikipedia is now, and not being able to weigh in on most matters simply because the weight of your words would tip the scales til they're flipping through the air. A lot of people would say you've made your bed, and they'd have a point. But I think it's worth reminding the good people here that being a founder doesn't always mean you get to do or say things others can't. Sometimes it means you can't do or say what everyone else can. -wʃʃʍ- 02:16, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Does anyone else notice Jeniffer Lawrences boob on this page?Amanda Smalls 20:41, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Boobs removed from Commons. Gaijin42 (talk) 20:45, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

No they are not. See [7]Amanda Smalls 20:47, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

mattbuck can you revdel the revisions in question and protect that image? There is one other image vandalized by the same user. Gaijin42 (talk) 20:49, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

a particular editor with a long track record of abusive behavior should be banned - you don't need a Foundation statement to do that. Just go. - 94.0.109.71 (talk) 20:42, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Why do you need assistance? Why does this have to be a Foundation issue? Just do it if you're gonna do it. Stop trying to throw your weight around behind the scenes with statements like "I am hopeful that the Foundation will step in" and step up to the plate yourself. I'm not a lawyer, but it was my impression that this kind of thing, for better or worse, is not the Foundation's job. And y'know what? Maybe it works, maybe it doesn't; maybe consensus is with you or maybe it's against you. Or maybe there is no consensus. But in any of those cases, you should just learn to live with the results like the rest of us, even as you work to change it. Part of "everyone can edit" is that sometimes people you don't like or would rather not work with are allowed to edit, too. That's the path you chose for Wikipedia; you should start dealing with the consequences. I'm speaking in metaphor here, but shit or get off the pot, man. If you're going to do something, do it. If you're not, please stop talking about it. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 20:47, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Without a proper mandate, to do so would only invite a silly mega-drama and not actually progress things. I do agree with "shit or get off the pot" - I am just saying that suddenly coming out of a general approach of not personally wielding the ban hammer and trying to build appropriate community institutions to deal with problems would be unwise. Building consensus for a positive change and shepherding through some breakthroughs in longstanding community deadlocks is the right way forward. Assistance appreciated!--Jimbo Wales (talk) 20:57, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Well, What can I do to help?Amanda Smalls 20:59, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Stick around. Weigh in. Email the Foundation. Find other good editors and build a movement for an RfC to make this issue clear. Ask probing questions at next ArbCom election and make sure that there are clear statements on whether or not we should tolerate abuse and misogyny. There's no one simple thing, but being here, joining the campaign, will make a world of difference.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 21:01, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

"Find other good editors and build a movement for an RfC" Would that be canvassing? J3Mrs (talk) 21:19, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Oddly, I just redacted and warned an editor for accusing Eric of misogyny (with, of course, as usual, no evidence whatsoever)... [8]. Black Kite (talk) 21:07, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

But the last few edits at ANI are a great example of the toxic environment. Not your edit necessarily, but the fact that another personal attack was removed and that edit was reverted. So one personal attack stays and the other is redacted. There should at least be some sort of system and some sort of standards. St Anselm (talk) 21:11, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes, but there's a big difference between criticism and diagreement, and accusing someone of being a misogynist (with, as per usual, no evidence whatsoever). That's why I redacted that. Black Kite (talk) 21:16, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

I don't disagree with that, but surely "Jimbo is unfit to be the public face of Wikipedia" is also a personal attack (given that it is not backed up with evidence, either). St Anselm (talk) 21:24, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

It does sound like hard work, though. Even just sticking around can be tough sometimes. St Anselm (talk) 21:09, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

If you ever accuse me of misogyny again Jimbo then we'll meet at AN/I. Again. Eric Corbett 21:13, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

I'll just quote you: "dishonest cunts" "fucking cunts" "if you don't want to be called a cunt don't act like one". I won't even get into "you're plainly an idiot" or the abusive comment that started all this in which you attacked a female editor's intelligence. Evidence matters, and it is overwhelming.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 21:24, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

See, Jimbo, this is exactly what I'm talking about. You say the evidence is overwhelming. So put it in an Arbitration request already. If it's as overwhelming as you say, they'll ban Eric just like you want them to. I know lots of people have little faith in Arbcom, but I don't think they're quite that bad. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 21:27, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

OK, enough. Time to put up or shut up please Jimbo [9]. You can have no problem finding diffs that Eric is occasionally incivil, but if you think you can prove that he is a misogynist I think you will find yourself struggling badly (and the simple use of the "C" word doesn't count - I think you know very well how that discussion went). Black Kite (talk) 21:37, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

The "quotation" above of Eric re "cunt" was not a quotation but really a paraphrase, one presumably to personalize what he wrote to make it seem worse, where no personalization was intended. (Here's the actual quote: "Besides, the easiest way to avoid being called a cunt is not to act like one.") What Eric actually wrote is (IMO) good advice for anyone and everyone, it wasn't a threat or condition for a name-call against the editor Eric was in dialoge with, as the paraphrase attempts to make it seem. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 22:16, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

You keep saying "allegedly good content contributions". I personally find that offensive, at least acknowledge "good content contributions". Do you have any idea how much work Eric and I put into getting Enid Blyton as a tiny example from a start class article into an FA article for instance. All for free, not a cent. Nobody has to put a thing into wikipedia and you can't expect "professional" level civility on a website which relies entirely on people putting in a lot of work without compensation. If you can't respect the work people do here for free, how can you expect those editors to respect you? Sure, you think Eric is outrageously abusive, but if you bothered to stop and read some of his articles you'd at least understand why so many support him, even if you disagree that his content is worth more than his behaviour.♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:13, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Jimbo's behaviour is far, far worse than anything I've ever done. Eric Corbett 21:17, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

You don't need a movement to start an RfC. Just start one. There's no need to wait until the next cycle of elections--WP:ARBREQ is right there and still open for business. When I'm telling you to do something about it, I don't mean ban him unilaterally. That is, of course, a bad idea. But what I'm trying to get at here is that the community is deadlocked because we don't agree on what the right thing to do here is. And you do not get to make up our minds for us. If you want an answer to "should Eric be banned", then pose that question to the community, and accept their answer, whatever it may be. You don't need a mandate to do that, and we already have the community institutions for it: either AN for the community as a whole, or Arbcom for a smaller group that doesn't get as easily drowned out in white noise. Neither of those institutions are perfect--far from it--but they're what we have. Use them. Is there gonna be a lot of drama? Undoubtedly. You seem to think it's worth the drama, though, so just suck it up and get to it.
And if you don't want to do that? Fine. But then you should stop talking about Eric in the meantime. You've made your opinion eminently clear already. If you're not interested in seeing if that opinion stands up to the community, stop voicing it. Because no, it's not nice to continually say that someone should be banned. Being banned is not a nice thing. We need to be open about such discussions, but you're not really discussing it, are you? A real discussion would take place on AN or somewhere similar; neutral ground where such discussion actually has the potential to reach a constructive conclusion, whichever way it turns. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 21:19, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

As I have said, I will appreciate assistance in that. I'm just curious - what's your opinion. Should we be the kind of community where comments like ""dishonest cunts" "fucking cunts" "if you don't want to be called a cunt don't act like one" should be accepted and ignored, no matter what the human cost? I don't think so. I think the biggest detriment to the encyclopedia's quality is toxic behavior like that. It's time to take a stand, and I hope you will support me in that. Without support from you, and others, and the Foundation, there is no hope and we'll go down the path of other communities which succumbed to trolling.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 21:28, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Substitute cunt for fool. Is that ok? The majority of EC's utterance of "cunt" are clealry used that way. Calling someone a cunt can be a serious PA. However it's like porn. You know it when you see it._Two kinds of pork^Makin'_Bacon|

It's rather one-sided though, isn't it. Jimbo speaks and his acolytes fall to their knees, Who would have the balls to block Jimbo? I on the other hand am easily blocked. Eric Corbett 21:26, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
The only reason that you haven't already been banned is your acolytes, though I prefer the term sycophants. Rationalobserver (talk) 21:30, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

It should be one-sided, and of course it is. The point is that I don't go around abusing people, calling them misogynist terms like "cunt" and using sexist terminology like "who would have the balls to block Jimbo". That kind of behavior is simply unacceptable and it's high time that we said so clearly and without regret.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 21:31, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Jimmy, I know you think living in high-end London or wherever you do now means you're now a Brit who fully understands British culture but I really think you should try living for a few weeks in average cities and towns in the UK, especially among working class communities. Calling somebody a cunt is simply an uncouth word like "twat" is in a lesser degree for somebody who is a contemptible ignorant person. "Who would have the balls" or "who would have the bollocks" simply means "who would have the courage". You really do not get that these remarks are in no way intended in a sexist terminology, they're deeply engrained in the British vernacular, at least among those who represent the vast majority of the country. Yes, the c word might still offend a fair few people and it does still tend to be one of the more controversial words especially among Americans but it is definitely not intended in the way that you think.♦ Dr. Blofeld 06:59, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Calling someone a cunt is seriously uncool no matter where you're from. -wʃʃʍ- 00:57, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Actually Jimbo, you do go around seriously abusing people. It seems you confine the very worst of your abuse to the very best of the content builders. Among other things, you have called them "toxic personalities" and "lacking in honour". What is really going on with you? Please step back while you still have some respect from editors who are seriously here to build the encyclopedia. --Epipelagic (talk) 03:47, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

If "cunt" is a misogynist word, why do we have WP:DICK? More to the point, I think you know very well that in many countries "cunt" is not used in that fashion, and the UK is one of them. Black Kite (talk) 21:39, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

You forget that I live in the UK, and "cunt" is considered a personal attack here as it is anywhere. It is not at all acceptable to call people names (of whatever provenance) at Wikipedia, and the apologetics for abuse must stop.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 21:50, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes, it's a personal attack, no-one is disputing that, but you're claiming it's a misogynist one. If I do something stupid at work, I'm just as likely as anyone else to be called a "stupid cunt" regardless of my genitalia. Would you claim that being called a "dickhead" is a misandrist attack? Black Kite (talk) 21:57, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Have you ventured into Council house territory before? I can assure you cunt is a well established vernacular.Two kinds of pork^Makin'_Bacon 22:01, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

There is no longer WP:DICK. There is "Don't be a jerk" 70.171.253.242 (talk) 23:34, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Jimbo, you claim that Eric is responsible for all these editors leaving without providing diffs, even when Giano asked for them to indicate Eric is causing half the community to walk out. But take that one article, one of hundreds Eric has contributed to. Nearly 30,000 hits a month. The work that went into that benefits 30,000 people a month, people generally who could not give a monkey's right testicle how it got there and how civil the editor/s who wrote it out. In one year that's 360,000 people, in ten years that's 3.6 million people benefiting from the work put into that one article. Add up all the FAs and GAs he has written and reviewed and in ten years this work is benefiting hundreds of millions of people. Do you see now why we think this is more valuable to us than if he didn't exist on here? We lose a contributor like this, "outrageously uncivil" or not, and that's a loss to that many readers over ten years which you don't seem to care about. Is this an encyclopedia or not? What really matters here? Can you really expect exemplary behaviour from everybody given the lack of compensation for the blood, sweat, and tears put into the project for free? Honestly, I'd rather not see this bad blood on here between the two of you and would rather see Eric getting on editing happily, but at least look at the other side of the argument... What's more important. FA quality work benefiting millions upon millions of people globally or one editor being mildly offended by being called a "dishonest cunt". Put it in perspective. What really matters here? ♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:30, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Dr. Blofeld, are you suggesting that as editors accumulate contributions they also accumulate amnesty regarding atrocious behavior? Is that all one needs to do is improve an article that gets lots of hits then they can all people "cunts"? Rationalobserver (talk) 21:35, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

What you haven't accounted for is the uncountable (because they aren't here to count) number of women and thoughtful kind contributors who have been driven away by a toxic environment in which calling people 'cunt' and similar is considered defensible. What diffs can I show to show you the people who don't edit because we tolerate such? I could show you plenty of diffs of outrageous behavior - but I don't think you are asking for that because you know and (I think) acknowledge that it's true. What you are asking for is evidence that it matters. The only evidence I could possibly give is that during the era when I personally banned people for much less than that, we enjoyed spectacular growth in contributors in no small part because finally, thankfully, people found a place of fun, of love, of lightness, of intellectual joy, rather than the sexist outrageous insult that is rampant online. What really counts is the hundreds of millions of pageviews on art

Yes, we have plenty of editors here who are both productive and "civil" by your standards, but everybody is different. Don't all dedicated contributors count? Couldn't some of the things Eric says be dealt with with less drama and comments?♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:40, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes, the block button tends to reduce drama quickly and firmly.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 21:48, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Really? I'm glad you've found it so. Bishonen | talk 23:05, 14 October 2014 (UTC).

I'm amazed by Jimbo's statement: "the block button tends to reduce drama quickly and firmly" - is he truly editing the same encyclopedia as the rest of us, or even living on the same planet? I clearly recall the RFAR of Jimbo when he'd blocked Bishonen and the subsequent leaks of the arbcom mailing list of the time. Quite astounding. Giano (talk) 07:23, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

I think it would be better to say that blocking useless editors tends to reduce drama. Looking at Eric Corbetts, or for that matter my block log and one can see that the blocks were always overturned way before they expired. There has to be another approach than a block.--MONGO 01:20, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

The smugness behind Jimbo's comment turns my stomach. --Floquenbeam (talk) 00:55, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

The number of hits an editor gets at their articles is, or should be, irrelevant. The community does not have one set of standards for prolific contributors and another for everybody else, nor is that a good idea. In fact, it's an absolutely terrible idea. Rationalobserver (talk) 21:44, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

"The most fundamental problem of politics... is not the control of wickedness but the limitation of righteousness" - Henry Kissinger --Epipelagic (talk) 21:43, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

(in response to Jimbo asking me what my own opinions are) Honestly, Jimbo? I'm reserving judgement until I see the evidence. Historically, I've been more in favor of Eric than not; it seems to me that he does tend to get provoked into saying the things he does. And after all, he does come from a different culture than I do, and who am I to judge him? Lately, though, I've been starting to think that respect for others' cultures needs to be a two-way street, and that, while we should be understanding when someone says something that we find offensive, they in turn should be understanding when we say it's offensive, and at least make an effort to change their patterns. Eric doesn't do the latter, no question. So I see sense in both sides these days; much would depend on the evidence (which must necessarily include context, not just sound bites).
But like I say, who am I? I'm Jean Valjean! My voice is only important as a single member of the entire community's; I don't get to make calls about whether he should or shouldn't be banned, admin, 'crat, or otherwise. And neither do you, founder notwithstanding. It's the community's decision and nobody else's, and if you insist on talking about it, I wish you would do so in a venue where the community can opine. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 21:44, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you are surprised that I ask for your opinion - it does count. I fail to see how he's been provoked. What culture do you imagine he comes from where nasty name calling is accepted? The UK? I live here, and that's not what culture is like here at all - nor anywhere.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 21:48, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

There is a fantastic NLCS game 3 taking place right now Jim. Why don't you watch the last half instead of responding here for a while?Two kinds of pork^Makin'_Bacon 21:51, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Jimbo, you say that Eric is responsible for the driving away female contributors by calling people cunts, but genuinely my experience of him and his talk page stalkers is that his involvement in the project has actually encouraged collaboration with quite a few decent editors here and there are many female editors here who've been grateful for his involvement and frequently turn up to thank him. Have you seen this? He honestly seems to attract female editors and article collaboration with them rather than repel them. There are many textbook civil editors on wikiepdia who regularly turn up on Eric's talk page and thank him for assistance and are willing to overlook anything he might say and see the bigger picture. Your view of Eric is entirely dominated by those negative comments and drama which you witness without having first hand experience of seeing that actually a lot of the time he has a way of actually increasing collaboration and improving content and mutual respect between editors if he is approached in the right way. Sure, I'd rather Eric kept what he thinks to himself at times like most of us do here to simply avoid the reaction, but I do think it's bleeding obvious that the current way of dealing with it is not working and creates more problems than what we being with. Blocks tend to inflame the situation more, I'm not sure why you think that is the solution, in fact I'm pretty sure a few weeks ago you said that abolishing civility blocks was a good idea to reduce the drama and backlash. OK you block Eric for calling somebody something, what about the huge backlash and admin circus act which follows. Is this really dealing with the actual problem, the root of it?? ♦ Dr. Blofeld 22:01, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Luis Suarez is a great footballer who scores brilliant goals and helps other players score great goals. But when he goes and bites someone, or stamps on them, or abuses them, no-one says he should be excused because of that. He gets a ban, for violence and for bringing the game into disrepute, and sometimes he (sort of) apologises. Ghmyrtle (talk) 22:18, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

The difference is that Suarez is paid a shit load of money on a weekly basis and football has very specific rules which are generally universally enforced. Eric works here for free and wikipedia's rules are about as contradictory and universally unenforced as you can get.♦ Dr. Blofeld 06:46, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Surely, Mr Wales, you must realise the irony of using the WMF in this way to further a (as yet unsubstantiated) personal vendetta against an individual whose work (and resulting click-through, views and donations) pays the salaries of those very same WMF staff? WMF isn't simply gifted funds because of the excellent governance arrangements it has in place (which you admit have failed anyway) - content drives donations. I have no problem with your having personal disagreements with others but the petulant manner in which you have gone about fighting this particular battle is unbecoming. Respect for you and this project is diminished by your conduct, in this instance, not that of Mr Corbett. You dislike Mr Corbett and his style (which is perfectly fine) but you clearly haven't yet gathered enough evidence to come even close to substantiating your claim that he is a misogynist or that he is driving editors from this project. I wonder if the WMF would assist me in making a case against those editors far worse, far more divisive and far more toxic than Mr Corbett could ever be? I think not. St★lwart¹¹¹ 22:16, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

There is no irony. There is no vendetta. The facts are very well substantiated - I have given exact quotes which no one denies. And my clear and obviously correct point is that his behavior is destructive to Wikipedia because it costs us good contributors who are not willing to put up with his abuse. Content absolutely does drive donations, which is why it is critical for us to get rid of editors who drive way good content contributors through abusive behavior. The case for his behavior being destructive is absolutely clear, unless you really do think it is ok to call people 'cunt' and to attack the intelligence of other contributors in the course of what should be routine editing. What more evidence do you need?--Jimbo Wales (talk) 23:09, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Jimbo, you're talking a big game here. Gather up your evidence--your actual evidence, not just assertions--and walk the talk. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 23:23, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

I have given exact quotes which no one denies. Wrong. (See above.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 23:30, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Mr Wales, you've given "exact quotes" that amount to no more "disruption" or "destruction" than the average Australian would experience on a daily basis. What you've described amounts to no more than routine playground vernacular. You'd have a tough time getting an Australian high school student reprimanded for that sort of language, let alone suspended. Yet here it suggests "misogyny", a failure of governance and disruption that must be stamped out. What say you of the systematic gaming, bullying and unfounded accusations used by others on a daily basis to actually drive people from this project? People you actively support and encourage while those using "bad words" suffer the full force of the WMF they fund? There is no irony? St★lwart¹¹¹ 00:33, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

I've really had quite enough of this. Jimbo Wales is a [redacted]. Now block me. Eric Corbett — Preceding undated comment added 23:39, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
Can we just block Eric now and be done with all of this drama? There are clearly two sides to this and I feel editors have had enough of Eric's un-civility and attitude from remarks he makes in his edit summaries to making snide remarks on his talk-page. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:43, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
Doctor Freud might suggest that Eric has an unhealthy relationship with Wikipedia, and he is subconsciously trying to justify his own banning, which would serve his persecution and messiah complexes. Rationalobserver (talk) 23:46, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
I don't think Jimbo needs evidence here, all you have to do is see Eric's edits over time. Take a dive through and im sure you will be more than convinced. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:47, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
What of? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:55, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
Can we just block Jimbo now and be done with all of this drama? There are clearly two sides to this and I feel editors have had enough of Jimbo's un-civility and attitude from remarks he makes in his edit summaries to making snide remarks on his talk-page. LHM^{ask me a question} 23:49, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
No, the reasoning behind it is that Eric has had a long history of this with multiple editors, I can agree that Jimbo should not have been feeding into it but do not see a reason for a block on that side. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:53, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
No, Kk87, I don't think you quite understand what's going on here. Jimbo's history of antagonism toward some of the very best content creators we have is quite long: Giano and Bishonen are a couple more, in addition to Eric Corbett. This project would be better off if Jimbo left it, never returned, and this page was deleted and salted. LHM^{ask me a question} 23:57, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
Lith I just want to say that there is already an arbcom case involving Eric's conduct here with another issue: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gender Gap Task Force as for the others I cant speak for them. its one thing piling up on top of another that is a bad trend here. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:02, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm late to this argument but I don't see Jimbo abusing people like this Eric person. Took a look through his user contribution page since 1 July and noted the following:

Have you got nothing better to do? Why not try writing an article yourself? Or what about taking a long walk off a short pier?
Let's face the facts. You're an incompetent editor determined for whatever reason to add unnecessary clutter to an article that you couldn't have written even in your dreams. Do you understand now?
Well think again.
That might be a first. Have you ever significantly improved anything?
When did you start reasoning?
I appear to have overestimated you Alfie; obviously you can't read.
Who cares what the article says? Haven't you got anything better to do?
Only in your rather ill-informed opinion.
I'm annoyed that you're wasting my time.
Bloodofox is even more incompetent than you are, so his displeasure is of no consequence to me, or I dare say Sagaciousphil either.
Unlike you I do not consider myself to be a superior source to the OED
It's you that's simple.
You really are a tedious twat.
I learned years ago that arguing with a fool make you the greater fool.
Waiting to see if this gets blanked. Nyth83 (talk) 00:20, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

That is evidence right there, yet some turn their heads because of friendship. if this were by any new editor I am sure they would be blocked by now. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:50, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Kk87, in an ideal world, Eric wouldn't swear, I'd miss less errors when reviewing or writing articles and we'd have no need of drama boards.....but it isn't and here we are. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:55, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

@Casliber: That's why we have WP:BATTLEGROUND, I agree nobody is perfect people will swear but considering all of the diffs above I think it is fair to say that this is long term abuse against editors. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 05:02, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

@Knowledgekid87: - a converse view is that the editor in question is very helpful and industrious around 90-95% of the time but has a short temper. Contrast that with editor or editors who contribute little content but spend a great deal of time at drama boards, Jimbo's talk page and/or arbitration pages arguing about......lots of things and being divisive. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:20, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

By that logic, a kid who gets good grades and does volunteer work around school shouldn't be punished if they punch a kid at recess. A bit of a vulgar (read: clumsy) analogy, but if I were to make the types of incivil/(clearly) attacking edits Eric has made that I've seen for even a minute in a place where people could see it, I'd probably be blocked, or at least raised at a noticeboard with much less biased discussion. Saying that someone who contributes good things but 5-10% of the time blows up in ways that violate policy should be given a different set of circumstances is a bit like saying the President (in specific, the POTUS) should be above law and appeal. (Whether or not you believe that's what's actually happening in either circumstance is less relevant in this analogy as opposed to actual policy and law in the situations.) - Purplewowies (talk) 07:38, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Jimmy, I think this discussion raises something more fundamental. This is no longer your website—you started it, yes, but it has grown beyond your control; beyond he control of any individual. The day-to-day running of the project is down to the administrators, who are appointed by the community to serve the community, and when administrators disagree, we have the arbitration committee. You have, wisely, in recent years (explicitly or implicitly) adopted a role closer to that of a constitutional monarch, a ceremonial figurehead, than that of a leader. Your talk page has long been used as a forum for discussion of all sorts of issues. At times, it has been a productive venue and a good place to raise general issues that don't being elsewhere. But recently, your comments have produced significantly more heat than light. And that is because you have, in my opinion, departed from your role as a constitutional monarch; constitutional monarchs have a right to be informed, to advise and to warn, and they occupy an incredibly rare and incredibly special position in the governance of their nation. But to continue occupy that position, and to discharge its duties effectively, the constitutional monarch has to remain above the fray, out of the day-to-day running of the nation, and somewhat detached (some might even say aloof) from the coal face. That means that they do not get to use their position to advocate for their preferred solution to the problems of the age, they do not act as though they are above their nation's laws (in our case, WP:NOTWEBHOST and WP:POLEMIC, and where the community they serve is divided they should be extremely careful not to exacerbate those divisions. If the monarch fails to discharge those responsibilities, one of two things happens—the monarch abdicates, or a constitutional crisis ensues which probably results in the abolition of the monarchy in its entirety, without even a ceremonial or traditional role. So I am asking you, because I care deeply about this project and I believe that you are inflicting wounds on this community which impair it from carrying out its functions, which are quite simple: to write and maintain an encyclopaedia. Everything which does not contribute to the fulfilment of that function is a distraction. Editors who spend the majority of their Wikipedia time on talk pages, noticeboards, and other fora dedicated to meta aspects of the project rather than writing or maintaining the encyclopaedia are a problem and sooner or later usually end up blocked or banned. Jimmy, you need to choose whether you want to accept the responsibilities of the role you have chosen (and thus, to put it bluntly, hold your tongue, especially when expressing your opinion would exacerbate deep divisions within the community), or you need to abdicate and behave like any other editor, subject to the same rules. The middle ground is a constitutional crisis, which will only distract further from the encyclopaedia and thus is not in anyone's best interest. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:48, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
I'm thinking Cincinnatus is needed on occasion. Not that I would support Jimbo blocking any editors himself, least of all Eric Corbett or little ole me for that mattter.--MONGO 01:24, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

HJ has nailed it in a diplomatic manner. Sorry Jimbo. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:55, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Exceptionally well.♦ Dr. Blofeld 06:15, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Yep, nailed it is right. Well said. St★lwart¹¹¹ 06:33, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Totally agree with HJ. Giano (talk) 07:06, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Nah, never liked the Constitutional Monarch analogy very much (for starters). I see a very woolly contribution, boiling down to: Jimbo shouldn't have an own opinion, and when he does, he should be silent about it. Nah, not the best option for Wikipedia. I support Jimbo's approach in this very much. --Francis Schonken (talk) 07:19, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

I agree with User:Francis Schonken and respectfully disagree with User talk:HJ Mitchell in that Jimbo has as much right to an opinion as any other editor. However, my original point is that when he complains idly without doing anything, it is seen as a failure of leadership, and he should know that if he complains without doing anything, it is seen as a failure of leadership. Robert McClenon (talk) 11:31, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

? In case you hadn't noticed: Jimbo's leadership (which is however limited, see his own comments above) comes out of this untarnished. A leader does not implement an action: he points out the problem, others do what has to be done. Those not doing what has to be done diminish the leadership, not those who do, after the problem has been carefully explained. The only thing worse for the stature of the leadership is that the leader can't find a single soul to do what has to be done, and would do it himself in the end. That would equal zero leadership, not leading anyone but himself. So all those asking "please Jimbo push the button on Eric C yourself" might just have been a bit more honest to the community, they envy Jimbo's leadership, and want to damage it, more than that they want to protect it. --Francis Schonken (talk) 14:02, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

I think the above post is one of the most pompous and pretentious pieces of drivel that I've ever seen written of Wikipedia. The only person likely to applaud it is Jimbo himself. Giano (talk) 21:25, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Comments for Jimbo et al.

First, I agree with User:WritKeeper that it is time for Jimbo to put up or shut up. Jimbo: Please stop making snarky comments as if there was nothing else that you can do. I understand that you don't want to use your reserved power to ban users. However, when you don’t use that reserved power and don’t use any of the options available to general editors, you aren’t exercising leadership. What you can do, yourself, without the need for an RFC or for WMF action, is to go to the ArbCom. You can ask them to open a case against any editor or editors that you think are poisoning the culture of the English Wikipedia. (Also, you can present evidence in an open case.) If you really think that a particular editor is a negative to Wikipedia, ask the ArbCom to act. You created the ArbCom so that you wouldn’t have to ban users yourself; you can ask them to ban a user. The ArbCom has, in at least one case, banned an abusive content creator. Don’t just complain. Please, do something or be quiet. (The editor in question has been blocked for 48 hours, but the block will expire, and doesn’t take the place of requesting arbitration.) Robert McClenon (talk) 02:34, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Also, don’t just complain about Commons. If it is as bad as you say, get the WMF to do something about it rather than just holding your nose and ignoring it. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:34, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Part of the trouble is that the WMF have no power over Commons. A large part of the recent trouble at Commons was about demonstrating that WMF had no power over Commons; one Commons bureaucrat made bad and harmful decisions re some bad behaviour by another Commons admin, just to spite WMF because he could. Commons then chose to support him in this. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:36, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Second, Jimbo mentioned getting a statement from the WMF and mentioned the possibility of an RFC. I have previously suggested that the WMF should conduct a survey of editors on civility enforcement and other issues. An RFC is the standard Wikipedia method for surveying active editors. (I had suggested a statistical survey including both active editors and former editors, but an RFC is a valid approach.) However, there is no need to wait for an RFC (or a statistical survey) to run its course or for the WMF to issue a statement to request arbitration. The two processes can run in parallel. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:34, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Third, the WMF could also review the governance and civility enforcement process, which is seriously flawed in at least two respects. The first problem has to do with blocks. Because a block can be lifted by any administrator, and because policy is that blocks are preventive rather than punitive, civility blocks are short-lived. Once any administrator lifts the block, further discussion of its appropriateness is mooted because there is nothing left to discuss. Should there be a more coordinated process for review of blocks? Should the arbitrary lifting of blocks be treated as wheel warring? Should blocks sometimes be punitive? The second problem is that “the community” at the noticeboards is not an effective mechanism for dealing with divisive users or divisive issues. Does “the community” at the noticeboards even represent the larger community of editors? Is some sort of governance reform needed? Robert McClenon (talk) 02:34, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Not that anyone cares, but this essay began during the first (at least I think it was first) EC Arb Case. I still feel it contains useful civility concepts the panda ₯’ 10:08, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

One of the concepts that it contains is that civility blocks should not be reversed without cause. I agree. As long as the arbitrary lifting of civility blocks is accepted (when it should perhaps be treated as wheel warring), abusive editors will persist in being abusive. Robert McClenon (talk) 11:25, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

This is all rather dull

Well, here we all are again: Eric has said the 'C' word and some people are having fits of the vapours, others are having hissy fits and the great majority probably could't care less. Care is actually an interesting word in this particular case because surprisingly perhaps of Jimbo and Eric, I suspect it's Eric who cares most about the project. I believe that the reason that Jimbo won't put his money with his mouth is because he can't be bothered to spend the time researching diffs and typing up a case against Eric - it takes time and commitment - neither of which I have seen much evidence of recently from Jimbo towards this project. Oh yes, he loves the TV appearance, travelling the globe and opining on matters upon which I sometimes feel he's ill qualified to comment, but life 'aint all jet-set glamour - at least it's not for most of us. Now take Eric, not a lot of glamour sitting at home, spending hours researching pages, then typing them up, and when he's not doing that for his own articles, he's generally copyediting for other people. What does he get in return? Quite frankly - not a lot. We hear much of his insults to others - and yes his short temper does seem to gain control sometimes (incidentally. in England, there's nothing at all misogynistic about the C word; it's just a stronger version of dick, prick, wanker, arse and utter fool), but when some utter fool refers to his content work as 'alleged' - can you really blame Eric for losing it? However, Wikipedia has its fair share of idiots and Eric should learn to be more tolerant of them, but we are not here to judge Eric - there are proper places and procedures for doing that. Jimbo needs to learn to stop stirring up trouble and making snarky comments unless he's prepared to do something about it - or at least ask one of his courtiers here to do it for him. Jimbo's continued, current trouble-making comments woudl not be tolerated from other editors. So make a case or shut up. Giano (talk) 12:12, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

I was just about to say something similar - I'd rather be called a cunt than an "alleged" good writer - incidentally with that last adverb Jimbo it's a pretty disparaging slur on the whole Featured Article process BTW. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:53, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Is Giano seriously invoking WP:V on the question of whether Eric behaves badly or not? That much isn't the question, it's what to do about it.

Is WP to issue a pair of magic hats where the wearer just doesn't have to follow WP:CIVIL? If so, who gets one? Could Peter Damian reapply? (I'd like to see his positive contributions here even more than Eric's). Will there be a RfSwearyHat process, where a contributor sufficiently hard working gets their just and profane reward?

If you think SwearyHat is a stupid idea, then think for a moment - isn't that what we've already done? If we are to, let's be honest about it. I can understand how the single unique founder gets one (and "alleged" was unhlepful snark, no matter who said it), but is that to be the only one? Andy Dingley (talk) 13:20, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Question: Who has "the vapours" and "hissy fits"? Answer: Women, children, and maybe effeminate men. As in:

"Uncle Henry... [had] and utter lack of patience with feminine timidities and vaporings." (Gone With the Wind)

"the demanding diva had a major hissy fit when she had to wait for her trailer to be ready" (Merriam-Webster)

They're related to female hysteria, and in this era they're meant to belittle complaints. 70.171.253.242 (talk) 21:23, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Eric isn't a misogynist. He's an equal opportunity ass. In working class London, where I worked for a few years in the 80s, "cunt" was a term of abuse applied exclusively to men and (usually paired with "dumb" and a chuckle) was even a coarse term of endearment. In Australia, where I now live, it doesn't have that latter use but is applied almost exclusively to men, and means a callous bastard. I'm just noticing it creeping into fringe discourse applied - very rarely - to women here, and when it is it is dripping with all the misogyny it seems to carry in the US. I assume it's creeping here from there.

Attempting to characterise Eric as a misogynist is draining your case. Those who know him well here know he's just an ass. In my opinion, he should be blocked for a long time. For being an ass. Admittedly, he's often an ass to people who are more trouble than they're worth. He's fairly discriminating in his assness. But not always. He does get it wrong. I supported the last lengthy block, and supported lifting it early because he showed some signs of self-awareness about the problem. He's lapsed and needs to be blocked again. For a long time. For being an ass.

Calling people cunts and dicks and telling them to grow a pair shouldn't be tolerated in any civilised 21st century work environment, and this is a work environment. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 13:18, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

And neither would standing around the water cooler complaining for hours on end and not doing anything constructive.....at any work environment. So you'd prefer to take a character slur as an insult than a swearword?Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:23, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

If you're saying gruffness and repeated (if naive) use of sexist language is less toxic than character assassination, then I agree. That is the sad thing about all this. Eric's treatment of people he deems to be fools is beyond the pale for a civilised workplace, but only just beyond. It's an edge case, and just (but firmly and obviously) over the edge in my opinion.

Sad, because this flamboyant sideshow is obscuring the real civility problem here. The real toxicity. Some of the very worst characters here are strutting about waving admin badges in people's faces, never using a word like "cunt". While many admins here are saints without whom this place would disintegrate, some are pure sadists. And there are many long-term users who are patent psychopaths, who've never called anyone a "little shit", but have driven off hundreds or even thousands of well-meaning volunteers, while our wisest admin got blocked by Jimmy for losing her temper once, and calling someone that. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 13:45, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

You are just as likely to hear the word cunt on a polo pitch as a football pitch. In both places it's said in the heat of the moment and it's not attractive. But this is not the place to be discussing its merits and use by one particular editor. Jimbo knows that full well. All I am saying is that Jimbo needs to make a case or drop it. This continued sniping (hoping someone will do it for him) from the sidelines is no good to man nor beast. Giano (talk) 13:30, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

The difference is that the spoken word is, indeed, heat-of-the-moment. On Wikipedia you actually have to type it, then click save - in the time it takes to click save, Jiminy Cricket should have time to kick in and prevent one from actually clicking the button. Unfortunately, many people don't have that conscience to think of the repercussions, or count to 10 before clicking save the panda ₯’ 13:53, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

I think that used to be known as MONGO-itis.--MONGO 14:25, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

How about we calm down, and take a minute to breathe. Editing while frustrated never results in progress.Amanda Smalls 13:27, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

I just want to say that after Eric was blocked the drama of course did not end there. Some of Eric's supporters lashed out at the admin who blocked him [10], [11] bringing up past edit stats as a way of an attack. Is this what it is coming down to? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:26, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

It clearly is what it's coming down to. We are here to write an encyclopedia, so if someone is not pulling their weight, it's hardly surprising if someone points that out. Chillum just loves the attention these blocks bring him, and Jimbo lives in a fools paradise surrounded by these attention seeking sycophants, all of them yearning for a pat on the head from a self-appointed 'constitutional' monarch who would not know the meaning of the term if it jumped up and bit his behind. By all means, condemn the use of the C word (I do too), but let's not be hypocritical about why some are doing so. Giano (talk) 15:08, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Do you have any diffs to prove this about Chillum or any admin that takes a stand against established editors for being in the wrong? The things admin here enforce are things set by consensus, if you believe the admin is acting badly then report it with evidence otherwise don't just throw accusations into the air. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:27, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

My takeaway from this is that repeatedly calling users with whom you disagree a "cunt" or an "idiot" is acceptable as long as you are Eric Corbett, but calling Eric Corbett a misogynist is unacceptable, or as they say around here, "beyond the pale". That Eric would threaten to take someone to AN/I over a nasty label is embarrassingly hypocritical. I'm not sure why any respected editors defend him, and as was said above, his behavior would never be tolerated in a work environment, so why is it tolerated here? Rationalobserver (talk) 20:09, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Calling Eric Corbett a misogynist is unacceptable, or as they say around here, "beyond the pale" because it is wrong, and undermines any argument based on it. Waving about the misogynist label in an attempt to get him sanctioned will only result in hoards of people (who otherwise might have allowed that, yes, sanctions are now overdue for his unacceptable equal-opportunity oafishness) to rise in his defence. It is a stupid tactical blunder. This farce couldn't have been scripted better. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 00:14, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Agreed 100%, he does nothing but piss others off and is already subject to an arbcom case involving his behavior. I don't care how good of an editor he is what he is doing is showing he is unable to work with others. Yes I know he has made friends with some I know he gets along with some as well but that does not excuse the bitter taste he puts in everyone else's mouths. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:20, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

So if you feel so strongly, why are you discussing it here, and not in the correct forum? Launch a case, you have the power and ability - so why not get on and do it? Or is it that this is a nice safe place to say what one likes? I'm sorry to disappoint you, but this is not a Catholic confessional - Jimbo is not the Pope - he's an editor just like you and me. However, he is a more manipulative one and he wants someone here to launch a case for him - that way, if it all goes horribly wrong, guess who gets covered in shit. On the other hand, if it all goes well, you will be his special friend for....well a few days. Funny old world is Wikipedia. Giano (talk) 20:29, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

There is already an arbcom case that involves Eric's behavior so it would just get pointed to that. As for Jimbo if you have issues with him then that is another story here I don't expect Jim to do anything as there are already things in place that can deal with this. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:36, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Really? Why are you here mouthing then? Giano (talk) 20:47, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

I can ask you the same thing why are you here? It would be better to address this through the Wikipedia foundation than on here. As for the earlier reply I was agreeing with Rationalobserver. the thing Jimbo can try to do is work with the foundation to help heal this divide. No editor regardless of how many contribs they have should be held above everyone else this includes Jimbo. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:52, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

I agree, and I think it's more than a little bizarre to see so many adults defending what's obviously unacceptable behavior. I'll bet Giano wouldn't let his child or employee call him a "cunt" or an "idiot", so why does he want to defend Eric's propensity for such immature and unintelligent responses? Wikipedia is losing editors, and it's not just because of reverts, it's also because the culture here has degraded to the point that most other websites are more civil, which is ironic, IMO, as this place ought to be a bastion of intellectualism, not barroom profanity. Rationalobserver (talk) 21:08, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm quite sure that my children have called me far worse things than 'idiot' - I'm confident enough to live with it. If I heard them call me a cunt, they would be well aware of my displeasure - probably painfully! However, Eric is not my child and I'm certainly not his father, so I won't presume to lecture him. The point I am attempting to make, is that there is a forum and a procedure for dealing with these matters, and it's not another editor's talk page - especially when the editor whipping up the hate (Jimbo) has banned the other editor (Eric) from that said talk page. The distressing truth is that, for all his posturing, these days Jimbo is just another editor - he has no more real power here than you or me. Yet he uses his page to attack other editors and expects some form of royal/diplomatic immunity. Well those days are over. He needs to prosecute Eric officially or shut up - not sit her like some embarrassingly naked emperor.Giano (talk) 21:21, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

My point was not that you are Eric's father or that you should lecture him, but if you defend his abusive behavior you passively condone his actions, which negatively affects the community at large, as evidenced by this most recent chapter in the time-sink that is Eric Corbett. I.e., the only reason that Eric isn't already banned is because of editors like you who make apologies for him, suggesting above that since, IYO, "cunt" is not that bad of a word in the UK, every editor of Wikipedia must learn to deal with it, versus taking a stand and asking (read: compelling) Eric to stop. From the Urban Dictionary: "Cunt: Derogatory term for a woman. Considered by many to be the most offensive word in the English language." Rationalobserver (talk) 21:29, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

You really must learn to read what is written, digest it and then not make false assumptions. I don't think you will find me apologizing for Eric anywhere, or suggesting that others must learn to live with the term. Eric's a grown man he can fight his own battles - except of course for when he's not allowed to explain or defend himself. I am suggesting that a case against Eric be heard in the correct forum, and he be allowed to defend himself. This is not the correct forum and he cannot defend himself. Ill-informed comment from those such as you in the wrong place is not helpful. Giano (talk) 21:39, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Your response reads as a thinly veiled attack on my comprehension skills. FTR, above you said: "Eric has said the 'C' word and some people are having fits of the vapours, others are having hissy fits and the great majority probably couldn't(sic) care less." This comment obviously downplays the concern, and it even suggests that a bunch of silly people are throwing "hissy fits" over a perfectly acceptable word such as "cunt". E.g., incidentally. in England, there's nothing at all misogynistic about the C word; it's just a stronger version of dick, prick, wanker, arse and utter fool. Is this not an attempt to re-define the term so that it's not as offensive as those throwing "hissy fits" are making it out to be? "Cunt: All senses of this word are vulgar slang and are very strongly tabooed and censored. The meanings that refer to a woman and a contemptible person are used with disparaging intent and are perceived as highly insulting and demeaning. There are many words used to refer to people in sexual terms. However, to call a person a cunt, especially a woman, is one of the most hateful and powerful examples of verbal abuse in the English language." Rationalobserver (talk) 21:46, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

You seem to be somewhat irrational, and reading between lines things which aren't written. This is obviously a personal issue for you, so I will leave you ponder it and further research the word cunt and it's uses. I will agree with you, that when used against a woman it's very horrible, and I've not known Eric do that. However, I'm not sure that in the 21st century we should have vulgarities that are worse for one sex than the other. I tend to think of both sexes as equal. Whatever, this is going off at a tangent. I've more than made my point about there being a time and a place to try Eric, and this is not it. Good evening. Giano (talk) 22:01, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

"'My research into the gender dynamics of online discussion forums found that men tend to be more adversarial, and to tolerate contentious debate, more than women,' said Susan Herring to a reporter from Discovery News. 'Women, in contrast, tend to be more polite and supportive, as well as less assertive ... and (they) tend to be turned off by contentiousness, and may avoid online environments that they perceive as contentious.'" Editors who regularly call people "cunts" and "idiots" contribute to a contentious environment that subsequently discourages women from participating, thus driving new users away and inhibiting the continued growth of this project. Rationalobserver (talk) 22:20, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I'm British. There's been such bullshit written about the c-word not being sexist in the UK. It's not used in the same way as in the US (i.e. it's not used to describe women) but in the UK it's without doubt nevertheless considered offensive to women however it is used. A 2005 report commissioned by Ofcom on offensive language in broadcasting, and cited by The Guardian newspaper here stated "Most offensive word to majority, and never really acceptable (though some might occasionally use). Very strong word and particularly disliked by women." DeCausa (talk) 22:25, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
Another to help slay this ridiculous canard: http://www.bbc.co.uk/editorialguidelines/page/guidance-language-full/ Andy Dingley (talk) 22:34, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Well, it might be true that a lot of women find the word offensive and consider it the most vulgar word. But where I come from (southern Wales), it's pretty common among younger guys to call somebody it, much like "don't be a dick" or "what a twat", and not in any way intended to be offensive to women when directed at a male. In fact I've often heard it used in friendly banter such as "Yes!! I won £10,000 on the lottery last night. The friend says "Lucky cunt". In fact Sir Bob Geldof called Russell Brand it on live national television here. Is he this grossly evil human being who wants to offend women? Did the audience walk out in shock horror? I think not. However, when it is angrily directed at a woman then it is seen as one of the most offensive things you can say and I'm pretty sure Eric would never call an editor known to be a woman it. Honestly, I'd rather than nobody swore at each other full stop on wikipedia as I know different people can be offended by different things, but I don't think of it as this huge taboo. Yes, it's stronger than "idiot", "prick" or "dick", but if you think it's uncommon then you've obviously not spent time in working class communities and schools around the UK. Do I think we should really be calling each other it on wikipedia? Nope. But I do think that some of the psychological bullying and other methods on here are a lot more degrading to individuals.♦ Dr. Blofeld 07:26, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia is neither youngsters' banter, nor a television show with whatever celebrity. In general, the Wikipedia community doesn't accept the name-calling along those lines, even Dr. Blofeld's opinion concurs on that point. It's up to Eric to accept that or not. Thus far Eric refused, when asked politely. --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:20, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

I see a few possible, credible outcomes:

1. Eric gets a clue and drops the language. No big deal, the rest of us seem to manage. We all get to do something sensible. Haters continue to hate, but no-one else cares about them. This appears "unlikely".

2. We throw Eric to the wolves. There's justification. There's enough support for this. We survive afterwards.

3. We allow Eric to continue, possibly making it official (an idea as good as the Pokemon: namespace was). We should then stop complaining about a decision we've made, but we won't.

Now I can live with 3a. I don't like it, but I'm not one of those obsessed with him. What concerns me though is 3b. We allow Eric this licence, but then every other foul-mouthed divisive troll starts to demand it too. After all, why can't they? We're based on "pillars", objective principles that apply equally to all. We have a problem with this already: we're inconsistent in their application (look at what was done to Alan Liefting recently), we have a big problem where all admins are infallible (and will block anyone who says otherwise). ANI is a popularity contest, even ANEW is getting that way. Commons, previously a mellow backwater, has grown worse than WP. We need (far more than this one editor minor issue) to address this subjective inconsistency. Eric and Giano are some of its biggest critics, and not unreasonably so. Yet we cannot give Eric a privileged mouthpiece to swear at our wrongs if doing so relies on using exactly that same uneven privilege to the nomenklatura. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:31, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes, the Wikipedia community has general expectations for behaviour in the same way that world religions like Christianity have a moral code for how human beings should be. In practice what percentage of people follow them all exactly? That's life isn't it. It's difficult to really enforce anything on a public website in which volunteers are here donating time and resources anyway out of their own goodwill. A large part of wikipedia in all honesty does actually function like a school playground in which "he called me the c word" type complaints to the teacher as Stuart I think it was said is unlikely to be reprimanded let alone expelled for. Yes, we would all like to think of ourselves as a professional encyclopedia company rather than a schoolyard which would typically have editors who mutually respect each other and display maturity in discussing development and produce a lot of content without drama or attacks, but wikipedia is not a professional institution with editors on a payroll. Basically Jimmy and the foundation want wikipedia to have a formal code and expectation of editors in institutions such as the BBC etc, but are unwilling to compensate people for producing content and for following that code. What can you really expect in a volunteer community? Of course Jimmy has the vision of an ideological community in which everybody is nice but the world is not like that and if you seriously think that disagreements and occasional heated arguments from time to time don't break out even in real world businesses and institutions with sweary personal attacks then you're deluded. I'm sure sometimes they're uncannily like Glengarry Glen Ross LOL!! For the record, I don't think it's that much to ask for editors to avoid calling each other names most of the time, but it is inevitable that some editors have less control over their feelings than others. Do we ban anybody with a temper? Or just those who have a temper too frequently for comfort?♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:57, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Re. "It's difficult to really enforce anything on..." Don't think so, see my proposal here --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:02, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes, we have general rules on behaviour. We should follow and enforce them, to the extent of banning content contributors.

If we don't do this, we no longer have rules, we have guidance. Guidance for an uncontrolled, life-tenured clique of judges who detect, try and punish wikicrimes as a single person. Implementation of such has thus become subjective. Eric rails against this, but his approach for doing so has come to rely on the same cliques and untouchable celebrity as what he complains of! He's gone from being a critic of the problem to becoming its embodiment. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:05, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes, if it is that important to the website then it needs to be universally enforced and no double standards which frankly plague the site currently. And civility needs to be extended beyond sweary personal attacks to psychological bullying and stalking if it is to be fairly dealt with.♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:01, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

At the risk of sounding like a parrot: do something about it, in the correct place, instead of complaining endlessly here. You are all like Jimbo, you want to berate Eric and incite others where he has no redress, but have no inclination to launch a case yourselves. Giano (talk) 11:18, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Well, who's complaining here, without doing something somewhere else? I replied "don't think so" to the complaints and did something somewhere else. --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:31, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Well! I don't think it counts if you don't notify him on his talk page. Otherwise, it's rather like hanging a dead man. Giano (talk) 11:41, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Seems a rather clueless comment. Quoting from the proposal I linked to: "(Eric Corbett's) ... talk page ... protected [12]." If you can't stop complaining doing something elsewhere, please at least stop the complaining for reading what others did. --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:53, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm no prude but.

Can someone remove the crotch shot pic?Two kinds of pork^Makin'_Bacon 21:36, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Not sure what you mean. But yes.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 21:37, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

I removed the 'Talk Page Stalker' template. Images were being added to that then appearing on this page. AnonNep (talk) 21:42, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Given the image is now protected locally and at commons, I've restored the template. Tutelary (talk) 22:03, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Template protected for autoconfirmed users only. User adding explicit pics was redlink name not IP. If it happens again someone just remove Wikipedia:TPS/banner (and surrounding double brackets) from top of this page. AnonNep (talk) 22:12, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Ohhh, so that's why someone vandalised a picture of a cat. I do wonder about vandals sometimes. -mattbuck (Talk) 09:46, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

I bet the same person posted the two Jennifer Lawrence pics, put the porn shot on the Main Page, and did this. They're all the same modus operandi (Logs). Wnt (talk) 02:14, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Respect

Hey Jimbo. I've only been an active editor for a few months, and unfortunately I've already witnessed exchanges that are remarkable in their ferocity and disregard for others' feelings. All too often, Wikipedians seem to lose sight of the issues at hand and resort to personal attacks and displays of disrespect in surprisingly petty matters.

What I find particularly interesting is that this behavior would not be tolerated in other online communities I've been a part of, and none of these communities had a formal process to deal with unwanted behavior like Wikipedia does. It got me thinking about what constitutes respect in those communities and how it is enforced. As far as I can tell, respect is defined by the values that everyone in the community shares; these values seem to be unwritten, but emergent in every member's behavior. And they are enforced by individual members of the community acting on their personal values. When one member of the community disrespects another, members of the healthiest communities immediately step up in plain site to say that's not what the community is about. Showing disrespect only puts the community's respect for that member on the line. In contrast, disrespect seems to be ignored- and sometimes encouraged- by Wikipedians who are not on the receiving end or addressed after the fact in committees and administrative boards. I think the silence sends a clear message to newcomers about what they are considering being a part of, and it's hardly flattering.

I'm curious what you think about respect within the Wikipediaverse. As a community, do we share the values that would add up to basic respect for others in most other communities? Are such values not relevant to our community, because Wikipedia is about building an online encyclopedia and not giving people warm fuzzies? It seems like iour values would run deeper than that. Or is it possible that Wikipedians have grown complacent and won't consistently stick up for these values because they've seen them violated so many times? And the $1m question: how can we promote respect in the community before we have to worry about enforcing it? Best. -wʃʃʍ- 22:33, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Your comments and questions are very wise. I have much to say about them.

First, our community has fundamental values that are very strong traditions and are deeply opposed to personal attacks and misogyny and so on. But they are also very fundamentally about hearing people out, even people who are not mainstream nor being kind and thoughtful. Both of these traditions are valid and have value, but they are also in tension. We don't want to be a community that is a police state where any form of dissent gets you blocks, but neither do we want to be some kind of 'radical free speech zone' where the most insulting and abusive behavior is tolerated.

Second, until a certain point in time, I personally made decisions to "thread the needle". My judgments were far from perfect - no human being could be perfect. A better approach was apparent and we took it - move that decision making into the community, building institutions over time to make wise decisions. (Knowing full well, of course, that institutions make errors too.)

Finally, here we are today. My view is that much of what we do still works remarkably well. But we have an increasingly hard time dealing with certain types of incredibly destructive behavior from people who also do good content work (or allegedly do good content work). The view - which you can see here in tonight's discussion - is that if someone can write featured articles that have a high number of pageviews, we should accept astonishing abuse, such as calling people "cunt" or "idiot". And - to be at least a bit more complete in my remarks - the behaviors are not just random minor violations of "political correctness" but ongoing thoroughly and unapologetically abuse behaviors justified by people (particularly women, I'm afraid) "deserving it".

I think this is fixable. But I think it requires an open and frank discussion, and a rallying call from seriously good editors who are producing good content but who think that we should *also* be working to welcome hundreds of *new* editors who are seriously good and also not jerks.

So I agree with you - "the silence sends a clear message to newcomers" - and I won't take part in that silence. I think we need to be vocal and clear - abusive editors will no longer be tolerated.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 22:53, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

(a) respect has to be earnt not demanded (b) if I had workers who spent all day every day at the water cooler complaining rather than doing any owrk they wouldn't be employed for long either. Jimbo, I presume you did mathematics to more than an elementary school level, why not look at Erics last 500 (or 100, 200 whatever) contribs and figure out what percentage are problematic or non constructive? And for fun, maybe comapre it with some other civility warriors? Or wllm or whoever? cheers, Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:08, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

You raise an interesting question - how to measure the damaging impact of abuse. I respectfully submit that counting percentages of edits that contain abuse is not a very valid way to go about it.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 23:12, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

I meant at least quantifying or appraising the data before firing off an opinion Jimbo - this place is full of folks making assumptions and assertions without actually checking facts. You appear to be saying you'd trust your own impressions rather than looking at data. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:55, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

This business about page views earning leeway is nonsense, and I seriously doubt that "Eric's articles" get the most views anyway. But if page views earned you Wikipoints that could be redeemed as an indulgence, the main editors of George Clooney could do no wrong, but I doubt they go about the project calling people "cunts" and "idiots" and suggesting that their allegedly superior intelligence gives them license to do so, and I doubt they would get away with that if they did. Rationalobserver (talk) 23:23, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

I agree.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 23:34, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Ironically, I was just having this same conversation on FB this morning, and this seemed pretty apropos:

"I'm sure there's a feedback loop that comes into play sometimes too. When the larger culture starts noticing that a word is often associated with hurtful consequences, thoughtful people stop using it casually. The people who are left using it are the ones are more likely to be using it hurtfully to begin with - so the word becomes more strongly negative. The word 'fag' has definitely followed this trajectory on college campuses in the US. Earlier, many of its usage tokens meant just 'casual, nonspecific insult to masculinity'. Now, if someone uses it, you know they're an asshole."

—Neotarf (talk) 23:53, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Forget about pageviews as most of my work is on esoteric stuff too. Fact is that we are a volunteer project not an elite-recruitment agency and many of us here have faults one way or the other. I have written some thoughts on it at User:Casliber/Crossroads (very incomplete!) - we are at a point where we need all hands on deck to move wikipedia up in terms of reliability and "encyclopedic-ness" for lack of a better word. Blithe talk of the encyclopedia writing itself or just waiting for the next wave of newcomers to pick up is naive at best and could be catastrophic at worst. This is not 2005. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:03, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

I should add - I've written 100 featured articles, plenty of good articles and been involved in various wikiprojects, stub contests, core contests and DYK. I've been elected as an arbitrator twice and nearly half of my 100,000+ edits are namespace. I've been published in (and reviewed papers for) peer-reviewed journals and have tertiary qualifications. I've spent years in all these areas looking at the content we produce over time, who writes it and how it is developing. I worry that pursuing this is one step closer to killing the goose laid the golden egg. I hope for all our sakes that I am wrong but don't say you weren't told. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:00, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

You are starting to tear this encyclopedia apart Jimbo, encouraging much more serious toxic elements with your light, love and ban campaign. Please step back and reflect on what you are actually doing. --Epipelagic (talk) 01:25, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

@Epipelagic: I hate to break it to you but not everyone here sees Jimbo acting in bad faith. What I do see are sides forming if they haven't already something the Wikimedia foundation needs to look into . - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:44, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

I don't think that any reasonable editor can possibly argue that EC's repeated misconduct isn't a cancer on the project, as their latest outburst demonstrates.[13] A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 02:13, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Au contraire. It's an environment rich in incivilites less easy to identify than "bad words", unrecognized and unchecked/unsanctioned, provoking responses you like to point to and blame, that is the real cancer. You're tapping the shadows. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 04:20, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

I don' think Jimbo is intentionally acting in bad faith, but (just as many people who don't work on or contribute much content) is missing the crucial point of how wikipedia is written, maintained and what it needs to do to remain relevant - and there is a real danger here of things going pear-shaped on a massive scale. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:58, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Interesting point. But I'm a bit confused about the latter assertion. Sure, I'm pretty clueless (I'm learning as fast as I can!) about how Wikipedia is written, maintained, and how it stays relevant, but don't we know through empirical evidence that Jimbo knows a thing or two about it? I look at what's been accomplished here, and, knowing that Jimbo is imperfect (if not quite as imperfect as me), it's pretty easy for me to find good reasons to respect him and his contributions to the world. Knowing how to build a wildly successful online encyclopedia is one of them. -wʃʃʍ- 14:52, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Moving away from the current fracas, and looking more to the OP's general observation, I can't help feeling that Jimbo's response about WP traditions is quite distant from day-to-day reality. (Specifically, "our community has fundamental values that are very strong traditions and are deeply opposed to personal attacks and misogyny and so on. But they are also very fundamentally about hearing people out"). Leaving aside the specific claim of "mysogyny" and just looking at the broader pictureof personal attacks and a hostile atmosphere, there is a number of people who represent the positive attributes Jimbo describes, and perhaps there is a strain within WP that represents that "tradition". But frankly I don't think it's a prominent one. The combative/adversarial tradition in WP (which I think is the dominant one) seems to me an inevitable outcome of the basic edit/revert methodology. A revert, at its most elemental level, is a "hostile" act. We all get aclimatised to reverts in due course (more or less!) but you can see the raw impact on newbies, IPs etc when they become so offended/angered/perplexed etc at the reverting of their edit. A whole edifice (Talk pages, civility policy, Drama boards, BRD etc) has been built in an attempt to ameliorate that fundamentally adversarial basis to the way WP works. An adversarial atmosphere does not equal personal attacks etc of course. But, IMHO, it is the root out of which they grow. I'm not saying there's a better way of doing things - just that, in a sense, no one should be surprised that we end up with the atmosphere we have. DeCausa (talk) 13:32, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Wow. Good point. (I assume you're not saying we therefore can't do anything about the culture here. I'm pretty sure we can.) --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 14:27, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

I was sort of edging towards it being inevitable (unchangeable?). But I'm a UK lawyer. English courts, like others in common law jurisdictions including the US but unlike civil jurisdictions, are based on an adversarial system of justice. However, in the English courts (don't know about the US) this is accompanied by an almost extreme form of "civility" etiquette amongst lawyers. May be there's a connection. DeCausa (talk) 15:41, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

To be clear, while I think "civility warrior" is a hilarious oxymoron, I wouldn't be numbered among them. I'm talking about respect- not civility- which runs deeper and manifests in a much more profound, albeit nuanced, way. Another thought occurred to me while I was reading some of these responses: in communities that prize mutual respect as a first-class value, members are often highly influenced by what the people they respect think of their words and actions. If this respect is based on values like kindness, forgiveness, and inclusivity, in addition to measures of competency, it becomes a virtuous circle that builds a community in resilience, accomplishments, and numbers. Ultimately, I don't think it serves the community to tolerate disrespect under any circumstances, including from an editor with a huge number of great edits. We simply don't know how many contributors- existing or new- such behavior will turn away from the project and how many contributions they may have made otherwise. We've already to seen some disturbing trends, and many point to perceived hostility among editors as one of the causes. On the other hand, it would be ideal if we could stop such behavior by making the editor feel more included, instead of excluding him or her outright, for both the project and the editor. FWIW, I didn't open this section in reaction to anything Eric has done or said, and I really don't have enough context to comment on his specific behavior. -wʃʃʍ- 15:45, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Respect is far far more important than civility. But there is a huge difference in that respect is (or should be) earned whereas, on Wikipedia at least, it seems that civility is a right accorded to any random fuckwit. pablo 19:29, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

This is where we might disagree. I believe every person deserves not just civility, but respect, down to the last "random [deleted gratuitous swearing]. And, FWIW, I don't presume to understand how smart someone is from a few interactions online. I'm interested in what they say, or I'm not. I don't see any reason to put them down, even when I don't understand what is interesting about it; why would anyone waste their time like that? -wʃʃʍ- 19:53, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

I am interested in what they do. I am less interested in their social veneer. pablo 19:58, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

You, Pablo, are a serious part of the problem. You've been actively encouraging rudeness and puerility here for as long as I can remember. Willm, this here is why "lead by example", alone, won't work. This person has undermined every discussion about civility I've seen on this project. There is a handful of such people here who - successfully - derail every attempt to make this a welcoming place for civilised discourse. I've deleted his gratuitous swearing. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 00:41, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

With all due respect ;), we won't know what difference practicing respect (again, I consider civility a sort of "veneer"; I'm interested in the real stuff) can make until enough of us decide to give it a try. And what do we have to lose? To show you what I mean, I'll break a person rule of thumb and suggest that you could show more respect in your comment without compromising at all on your disapproval of Pablo's behavior. You can start by talking exclusively about the behavior, not the person. Then avoid any accusations that aren't directly supported by evidence in the form of a link, etc. This is, as far as I can remember (Pablo, forgive me if my memory fails), the first time I crossed paths with Pablo; your characterizations are almost all I will have to go by for now, and it would be tragic if they turned out to be unduly harsh. Unless they constitute a threat or hate speech, I'd also let Pablo's words stand for themselves; he has already accepted the consequence that people like me or you might think less of him for it. Finally, talking about what others can do to improve their behavior is best saved as a last resort- after all, it very rarely works. If you feel like there is some reason it will improve matters, then I suggest going about it in the most objective of terms. For example, I already know you from many interesting, constructive discussions, so in this case I'm betting on the possibility that you'll consider what I've said without taking offense and maybe even follow some of my unsolicited advice. Perhaps the most significant outcome that can come of it is I can also admire you for your rare ability to express disapproval and respect at the same time. Or you could just tell me to go screw. :) -wʃʃʍ- 03:11, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

If the standard of discourse here were such that no one would even consider dropping an f-bomb in a very public forum, then all that would be required is leading by example and shunning those who can't behave. But getting from here to there will involve at the very least expressing bluntly what we think of oafish behaviour and deleting gratuitously offensive language, and occasionally (rarely I hope) showing oafs the door. We cannot expect sensible experts to engage in the present frat-boy culture, and this culture largely underpins the diversity problem. The success of this project depends, partly, on culture change. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 04:13, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Practicing respect isn't some panacea. No matter how many good vibes we groove out by respecting others, we'll always need a way to put an end to bad behavior when the person behaving badly can't or won't bring an end to it themselves. But every person who makes a personal decision to practice respect does their part to keep such cases to a minimum while making Wikipedia a more pleasant place for every Wikipedia you come across. You'd also help push respect to a critical mass, when everyone gets used to it in enough of their Wikipedia dealings that they begin to expect respect in all of them. I have a lot more to say about this, but I've decided to give Jimbo's talk page a breather and write it up in an essay instead. If you're interested, I'll send you a link once I've finished the first draft. Would love to hear your thoughts. -wʃʃʍ- 06:58, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes please. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 23:09, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Anthony - unsubstantiated hyperbole like yours above, and Jimbo's (still) unevidenced accusations of misogyny are a larger part of the problem. And if it is a 'culture change' you seek you could try not using terms like "f-bomb" and "frat-boy", neither of those figure in my culture and I suspect I am not alone in this.
Please do not edit other people's posts. It is extremely rude (ie uncivil). pablo 07:33, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

An image of you and your words - deletion nom @ Commons.

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jimbo_Wales

Saffron Blaze (talk) 22:39, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

According to a reliable source, a commons admin (@Russavia:) made a corrupt offer to write a Wikipedia entry about an artist who does "penis paintings" as follows "I'm going to write a Wikipedia article about you, he said, and you penis-paint the face of Jimmy Wales, the cofounder of the largest and most influential encyclopedia in the world. The painting would then be added to the article." Source. Until that admin is blocked, either by the community at commons, or the Foundation, for harassment, and the work deleted then I have very little interest in responding to inquiries at commons.

I should be clear - the problem is not the abuse of me, but the toxic and juvenile environment at Commons. I have never failed in 30 seconds of looking to find a horrifying BLP violation at commons of a photo of an identifiable woman engaged in sexual activity with highly questionable provenance (for example a deleted flickr account). Every time (including tonight) that I go there hoping to see improvement, I am disappointed. And I think that as long as we tolerate it and don't bounce some very bad admins, we will not solve the problem.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 23:04, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

I should also be clear that this notice was intended as a courtesy and that I was one of the vocal opponents of keeping the pricasso works. BTW, I find the environment at WP just as toxic and juvenile. Saffron Blaze (talk) 02:41, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

This image seems to be based on a slide from the Wikimania civility speech of August 2014, which I took the liberty of making a transcript of at User talk:Neotarf/Jimbo civility speech transcript. Unfortunately the location of the audio seems to keep moving around and currently I have it at [14] which I can't even sign in to now. I would trust this has all been posted to Meta by now, so maybe someone who knows how to find this easily would provide the location, which would probably solve the copyright mystery at Commons as well. —Neotarf (talk) 23:17, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Imagine a world where I am too important to respond to anything. There are people who actually collaborated on commons and not just disparage these people defining them as toxic and juveniles, paradoxically when your decision not to respond even more juvenile, to say, like a child. --Wilfredor (talk) 01:08, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Is this how you respond at commons to complaints about harassment? To call the victim juvenile? Ok. But don't expect me to come over there very often.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 11:56, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Comment: Assume a position of victimization is not the same as being a victim. To blame others guilt, because they are young and toxic, is when at least one negative comment and toxic itself. When you judge others seem to define yourself. What is happening in several projects is their lack of interaction with them, lack of leadership. Imagine a world where parents do not want to talk to their children because they are toxic and juvenile, what is the result? a toxic and youthful atmosphere conducive to yourself. I'm not against that WMF make money with our volunteer work, however, no interaction is unacceptable. So, I invite you to care more about the community and not only when cash is needed. --Wilfredor (talk) 12:30, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Jimmy, I've no comments about this particular case; but would like to know the copyright status of works/contents used in Wikimedia programs. We know now that all works by WMF staff are CC BY-SA 3.0. But there are lot of works prepared by WMF volunteers and individuals like you who are not directly under any agreement with WMF (my understanding). This creates some uncertainty about the copyrights of such works. Do we have a way to make sure all works used in Wikimedia programs are freely licensed? This will make our life easier and save a lot of volunteer time. J e e 12:21, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Jimmy, you trust in the Wikipedia community so much while at the same time you aren't happy with the Commons community. Could you please tell us what makes you to believe that the Wikipedia community is any healthier than the Commons community? Aren't there the same anonymous users who make both communities? Wasn't russavia a member of the Wikipedia community until recently, and how many more russavias are current members of the Wikipedia community?

I agree there are many BLPs violations on Commons. Why do you complain about it here, and do nothing to remove those BLP violations on Commons? Who governs "the largest and most influential encyclopedia in the world", anonymous members of the community, or the WMF, or trustees?

Why don't you start desysoping process of Russavia on Commons? The result would demonstrate what the Commons community is worth. 202.65.118.154 (talk) 22:14, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Help Save Wikipedia From Being Hijacked, Conspiracy and Censored

Mr. Wales, help save your baby from being censored, and Hijacked. I tried to add a page listing all the Legal Challenges to the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, a complete unbiased record found in any good Encyclopedia. However some of the users have decided this should not be part of the document. They are Hijacking History and have an Agenda. At one time it was listed at Draft:Legal Challenges to the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.

The excuses for rejecting the page started at "This WAS a Work of Fiction", to

"How would I know? But if this costs $.10 a page it seems to me that the sites are copyright, too. And we cannot have copyright violations. Fiddle Faddle 14:27, 12 October 2014 (UTC)."

It is now scrubbed from the delete log, and NO HISTORY AVAILABLE!! Some of the users involved were User:Bbb23, User:Fiddle Faddle, User:DrFleischman.

What I started with was;

Draft:Legal Challenges to the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Since the passage of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, there have been numerous actions in federal courts to challenge the legality of the legislation.[1][2] This article describes the challenges by date and case number of every case mounted against the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. Format is date, case number, court, Constitutional Challenge [Y/N] All references should include date filed, actual government case number designations and status.
On July 29, 2014, (1:14-cv-01287-RBW)United States District Court for the District of Columbia. Constitutional Challenge [Y]. The State of West Virginia v United States HHS,et al was filed which challenges the "Administrative Fix" and other constitutional violations of the law. State of West Virginia has filed a Motion for Summary Judgment. Defendant (HHS) has requested an extension of time to respond until October 17, 2014. [1][2]
On December 31, 2013, (1:13-cv-02066-CKK/14-5183)United States District Court for the District of Columbia. Constitutional Challenge [Y]. Cutler v. United States Department of Health and Human Services, et al. Cutler challenges the constitutionality of the Act, both on its face and as applied to him and his constituents. Cutler asserts that the provision requiring individuals to obtain health insurance coverage or face monetary penalties violates the religion clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution and a previous Supreme Court Decision , “1947 Everson v Board of Education”, and allows the government to favor one religion over another religion. The process of empowering the United States Government to Certify that applicable individual is part of EXEMPT RELIGION or SECT, Cutler seeks a declaration that the Act is unconstitutional, invalid, and unenforceable. Cutler also seeks to "rollback" the law to the status it had prior to 2014 on various grounds, arguing that the law NOW violates the Constitution by allowing unequal protection under the law.(If You Like Your Plan, You Can Keep Your PLAN till October 1, 2016, but only if the insurance commissioner of your state agrees[3]). The federal government's motion for complete dismissal is under review, as is the plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment. Notice of Appeal was filed on July 25, 2014. On August 11, 2014 a notice of related case was filed for the case of State of West Virginia v United States HHS,et al (1:14-cv-01287-RBW). Lawyers from the American Freedom Law Center are handling the appeal.
On October 30, 2013, (1:13-cv-01214-WCG/14-2123}. United States District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin. Constitutional Challenge [Y]. Association of American Physicians & Surgeons and Robert T. McQueeney, MD v IRS. On September 22, 2014, the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Chicago affirmed a Wisconsin federal judge's decision to dismiss a lawsuit filed last October by the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons, Inc., and Robert T. McQueeney, who treat patients on a cash basis, and want to prevent everyone from being required to be covered by health insurance. The plaintiffs had sought an injunction blocking the IRS from collecting the penalty in 2014, on the argument that it would violate the Tenth Amendment and separation of powers. [4] [5]

References

West virginia attorney general suing White House over Obamacare

http://www.pacer.gov

Transition to compliant policies

http://www.pacer.gov

http://www.jsonline.com/blogs/news/275834801.html

108.11.225.31 (talk) 04:26, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Do you have an agenda that you wish to advance? If so, the rest of the Internet is wide open to you. Blog to your heart's content. In the mean time, all that hijack-conspiracy-censored talk is oh so boring. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:18, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

I don't know about the whole "Hijacked, Conspiracy and Censored" if the log is wiped then I cant see what happened, so I cant help you with that. What I can say is that it seems to be a NPOV (although a bit dry), however I question why you are linking to pacer? Yes it is the "official" government court filing system, but there are unofficial cache's of the files you can link to that do not cost money. Go see RECAP The Law. Or one of the other 3rd party hosting of court documents for instance one of your cases could be cited to:[15] --Obsidi (talk ) 01:41, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for creating Wikipedia!

	Pika!!
	Have A Pikachu!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Daemon64 (talk) 22:51, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Wikisource license request

Jimmy,

Please see message left at your Wikisource user talk page at s:User_talk:Jimbo_Wales#License_request.

Thank you,

— Cirt (talk) 03:21, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

I responded affirmatively over there. Thanks for asking!--Jimbo Wales (talk) 07:44, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks very much! Responded there. — Cirt (talk) 07:49, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

WIKIPEDIA, Hijack of History, Censorship, Conspiracy and Abuse of Power64.134.241.42 (talk) 22:09, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

This has already been posted once, and it is clear that neither Jimbo nor anyone else is interested in your conspiracy theories. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:57, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

There appears to be a conspiracy to limit the public information about Obamacare on Wikipedea. Some individuals with an agenda are trying to limit coverage. It appears that User:DangerousPanda User:Bbb23, User:Fiddle Faddle, and User:DrFleischman are engaged in a conspiracy to limit history, censorship and abuse of power. My associate, tried to create a new page to document the Legal Challenges to the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. All traces to that effort are erased. The alleged reasons for deletion and refusal were obscure, one reason was because it was “FICTION”. The latest reason stated was (Inappropriate recreation of an inappropriate draft of an inappropriate article), please Investigate or try adding it yourself. Save history!!! WHY IS THIS AN "inappropriate article"?

Below is what was there:

Legal Challenges to the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Since the passage of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, there have been numerous actions in federal courts to challenge the legality of the legislation.[1][2] This article describes the challenges by date and case number of every case mounted against the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. Format is date, case number, court, Constitutional Challenge [Y/N] All references should include date filed, actual government case number designations and status.

On July 29, 2014, (1:14-cv-01287-RBW)United States District Court for the District of Columbia. Constitutional Challenge [Y]. The State of West Virginia v United States HHS,et al was filed which challenges the "Administrative Fix" and other constitutional violations of the law. State of West Virginia has filed a Motion for Summary Judgment. Defendant (HHS) has requested an extension of time to respond until October 17, 2014. ^[1]^[2]

On December 31, 2013, (1:13-cv-02066-CKK/14-5183)United States District Court for the District of Columbia. Constitutional Challenge [Y]. Cutler v. United States Department of Health and Human Services, et al. Cutler challenges the constitutionality of the Act, both on its face and as applied to him and his constituents. Cutler asserts that the provision requiring individuals to obtain health insurance coverage or face monetary penalties violates the religion clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution and a previous Supreme Court Decision , “1947 Everson v Board of Education”, and allows the government to favor one religion over another religion. The process of empowering the United States Government to Certify that applicable individual is part of EXEMPT RELIGION or SECT, Cutler seeks a declaration that the Act is unconstitutional, invalid, and unenforceable. Cutler also seeks to "rollback" the law to the status it had prior to 2014 on various grounds, arguing that the law NOW violates the Constitution by allowing unequal protection under the law.(If You Like Your Plan, You Can Keep Your PLAN till October 1, 2016, but only if the insurance commissioner of your state agrees^[3]). The federal government's motion for complete dismissal is under review, as is the plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment. Notice of Appeal was filed on July 25, 2014. On August 11, 2014 a notice of related case was filed for the case of State of West Virginia v United States HHS,et al (1:14-cv-01287-RBW). Lawyers from the American Freedom Law Center are handling the appeal. On October 16, 2014 an injunction pending appeal was filed based on "unequal treatment under the law".^[4]^[5]

On October 30, 2013, (1:13-cv-01214-WCG/14-2123}. United States District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin. Constitutional Challenge [Y]. Association of American Physicians & Surgeons and Robert T. McQueeney, MD v IRS. On September 22, 2014, the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Chicago affirmed a Wisconsin federal judge's decision to dismiss a lawsuit filed last October by the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons, Inc., and Robert T. McQueeney, who treat patients on a cash basis, and want to prevent everyone from being required to be covered by health insurance. The plaintiffs had sought an injunction blocking the IRS from collecting the penalty in 2014, on the argument that it would violate the Tenth Amendment and separation of powers. ^[6] ^[7]

On July 26, 2010, (1:10-cv-01263-RJL/13-5202)United States District Court for the District of Columbia. Constitutional Challenge [Y]. Sissel v United States HHS,et al was filed which challenges the "Individual Mandate" and other constitutional violations of the law. The case was amended to challenge the constitutionality as a violation of the “Origination Clause” of the constitution . On July 29, 2014 the court rejected plaintiff's argument that the fact that Section 5000A may have been enacted solely pursuant to the taxing power brought it within the ambit of the Origination Clause, noting that many exercises of taxing power have a primary purpose other than raising of revenue and thus are not governed by the Origination Clause at all. ^[8]^[9]

References

Request for community input on IEG proposal: editor interaction data sets and visualizations

As you may have heard, Editor Interaction Data Extraction and Visualization is an individual engagement grant proposal. I am working on this proposal with volunteer assistance and advice from Aaron Halfaker (WMF), Haitham Shammaa (WMF), and Fabian Flöck (Karlsruhe Institute of Technology).

We would greatly appreciate your comments on whether you support or oppose the general concept of this project, and any suggestions about how to refine the proposal.

Additionally, we would like to hear from you about which sets of editor interaction data, and what visualizations of editor interaction data, would be most relevant to your interests. We intend to prioritize our outputs with your comments in mind.

Please comment on the proposal talk page. Questions and feedback, both positive and critical, are helpful to us as the proposers, and also help the Individual Engagement Grants Committee [1] to assess the proposal.

Regards, --Pine^✉ 18:23, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

[1] I am a member of the Individual Engagement Grants Committee. I am recusing from reviewing proposals in this funding round.

Jennifer Lawrence naked on Wikipedia again

Jimbo, exactly as I predicted, someone has made stolen naked images appear on Wikipedia's biography of Jennifer Lawrence again. I don't credit myself with any special powers of prognostication, it was just obvious that this would happen again if we didn't find a way to prevent it. Dozens of female celebrities have recently had stolen private images leaked to the public. Unless we find a way to stop this, we can look forward to it happening over and over. And the remarks on Talk:Jennifer Lawrence show that readers do notice and aren't happy. What are we doing to fix this? Legit Alternate Account (talk) 14:30, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

I highly recommend that we move the image that we want in the article onto English Wikipedia and link to it locally rather than at Commons. In this way, we can make sure that at least English Wikipedia lives up to our ethical standards. This should be the case unless and until Commons does the right thing and protects the image on their end. It is a terrible loophole that something critical on Wikipedia is left vulnerable to shenanigans on commons.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 14:38, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

The infobox image has been fully protected on Commons for several days. The other images were fully protected about 12 hours ago, and are set to stay so until April. You know, if someone had just asked a Commons admin to do that.... -mattbuck (Talk) 14:44, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Why weren't the other images protected after the first time this happened? Legit Alternate Account (talk) 14:50, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

JImbo, that's fine for Jennifer Lawrence, but what about the literally dozens of other celebrities involved in the recent leaks? And what stops naked Jennifer Lawrence pictures showing up on unrelated articles? Legit Alternate Account (talk) 14:50, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Apparently you can just ask Mattbuck to protect them and... problem solved. If that turns out not to be true (I won't prejudge the question) then I recommend moving them to English Wikipedia and protecting them here.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 14:53, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Post a list of articles whose pictures you want protected at commons:COM:AN and we'll take care of it. -mattbuck (Talk) 14:59, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

I avoid participating at commons due to the blatant harassment of me that is tolerated there.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 15:01, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

I wasn't stating that you in particular had to do it, but if someone could come up with a list of what articles/images need protecting, that would be helpful. -mattbuck (Talk) 15:45, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

What is your suggestion to stop this? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:51, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Beyond not allowing uploads, there's not really any way to avoid it. -mattbuck (Talk) 14:59, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

That's obviously untrue.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 15:00, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

???. What's to stop editors from uploading pictures and adding them to wherever they like? There's no magic solution, just like there's no magic wand to wave away vandalism. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:04, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

I have to ask why we (or commons) allow images to be replaced in this way, without any checks. It is an obvious vulnerability, and we appear to have no mechanism whatsoever available to detect it. Why not? There must be software available that can compare old and new images to see whether they are similar (reverse image searches clearly work that way) and the occasional false positive would be no more problematic than those from our existing anti-text-vandalism bots. And if we can't do that, perhaps we should consider some kind of mechanism for allerting those watching articles using images that the image has been changed - an automated post to the article talk page would be better than nothing. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:04, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Is there anyway I can help out?Mirror Freak My Guestbook 15:06, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

It seems that if someone can get a list of images in 'Fappening' affected articles to Mattbuck, he'll protect them at commons.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 15:09, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Have we tried to compare the names of the photos that the vandals are uploading? There may be some kind of similarity between them.Mirror Freak My Guestbook 15:12, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Changing file names is trivial. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:14, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

The vandals are replacing images that are already on Commons, so the filename doesn't even get looked at. Someone correct me if I'm wrong about that. Legit Alternate Account (talk) 21:08, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Such a mechanism would be very helpful, Andy. Some easy way to detect that stuff certainly. I mean, I have some 82k pages on my Commons watchlist, which is enough that I can't actually edit the raw watchlist anymore, but even if all those were images it's not even close to 1% of Commons. Most images likely are watched by their dead account uploader and no one else. -mattbuck (Talk) 15:50, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Following a suggestion above by AndyTheGrump: could software be used that assesses the similarity between an existing image and a replacement? I suspect most updates are very similar and could be accepted automatically, while radical changes with low similarity could be flagged for attention. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:58, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

It's better than nothing, but for images where there's cropping or things are being moved around for any one of a hundred legitimate reasons, it's going to create a significant number of false positives which will require equally significant amounts of volunteer effort to approve. Nick (talk) 00:21, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

For so you know, All pictures from enwiki article of Jennifer Lawrence have been protected. All naked images from Jennifer Lawrence (at least all we are aware of) have been deleted from history and oversight. I've just reported it to the Legal and Community Advocacy team. Do not hesitate to contact one of our fonctionnary (even privately if one don't want to go on Wikimedia Commons). --PierreSelim (talk) 06:10, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, Pierre. The discussion here is about how to stop this from happening again and again and again. There seems to be absolutely nothing to prevent vandals from replacing the lead image in Ol' Waylon Sings Ol' Hank (to choose a random article) with a naked image of Jennifer Lawrence (or any one of dozens of other celebrities who have had their private images stolen and leaked to the internet recently). Legit Alternate Account (talk) 15:00, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

The situation on Commons

The situation at Commons and the situation with civility in English Wikipedia are similar in the sense that a Wikimedia community has gotten out of line with WMF guidance. In the case of Commons, it is apparently simply out of control, and maybe WMF needs to intervene. In the case of civility in the English Wikipedia, reasonable editors can disagree, but the community is ignoring or disregarding the (nominally overarching) WMF policy. It appears that the WMF can't or won't enforce its own policies. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:13, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

How does this have anything to do with the Lawrence situation? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:16, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Robert, could you please explain quite what you're referring to regarding civility and Commons? -mattbuck (Talk) 15:51, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

I am referring to two different situations that are related only in that two Wikimedia communities behave in ways that are out of line with WMF intent and the intent of Jimbo Wales. The civility issue doesn't have to do with Commons, but with the English Wikipedia. WMF and Jimbo Wales favor high standards of civility. The English Wikipedia has low standards of civility. Some editors essentially get a pass on civility. Very little can be done about it, because if one of them is blocked, the block is reversed by another admin, and the restoration of a block would be punitive rather than preventive. Jimbo Wales expresses concern about the deteriorating civility situation. There has been discussion of the use of WMF resources to address the issue. I know less about the Commons situation, but it is my understanding in the specific case that a legitimate image of the actress was replaced (vandalism) with a stolen nude image of the actress. Has the Commons editor who replaced the image been blocked or banned from Commons? The two situations are not related, except that they appear to illustrate disconnects between WMF policy or intent and the actual environment in the Wikimedia community. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:02, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

If you know less about the Commons situation, why comment it was out of control? A quick check would have shown you the editors were blocked with no fuss. [16] --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:12, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for blocking the vandals. I will add that part of my comparison of the two situations is that in both cases Jimbo Wales complains, but either doesn't do anything or doesn't do anything obvious, although he has reserved powers in English Wikipedia that he doesn't use. (Does he have reserved powers on Commons?) Robert McClenon (talk) 16:43, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Clarification: I had nothing to do with blocking the vandals. That was the admins on Commons. Jimbo has the founder flag on all Wikimedia projects. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:49, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks to whoever blocked the vandals. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:38, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

I have to take issue with the idea that these people are somehow "Commons vandals", they're vandals that have attacked the entire Wikimedia family of sites, every single Wikimedia Foundation wiki that uses these files was affected. I'm also quite frankly shocked and very disappointed that you think the administrators on Commons wouldn't block these accounts. There's the obvious and very important moral argument about uploading these images, we know the subject asked people not to view them or further distribute them, so respecting the subject's wishes is of course paramount, but there's a boring, practical legal issue - these images are simple copyright violations that have to be deleted, we have a legal and a moral responsibility to make sure that copyright violations are not distributed further, which we do day in, day out by blocking those who upload copyright violations. Nick (talk) 00:59, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

When I made the suggestion, Commons responded in about an hour. Ideas for restricting overwriting of files or improving watchlisting are being discussed now. I think that Commons deserves to be dealt with in good faith here, without the whiff of pessimism I'm getting above. The overwrites to files have always been problematic - they can be used to retroactively make User: pages look scandalous, or to get into POV battles -- or worst of all, and most frequently, they are used to "update" figures over and over again, contrary to WP:NOTNEWS and WP:RECENTISM, so that instead of having individual snapshots in time for, say, the spread of an epidemic, we end up with a mess of old history versions, none especially accurate, where the functions of removing errors and changing the time the file represent are slurred together preventing the creation of an encyclopedic resource. Yet, of course, we do need to be able to make corrections to errors; maybe a same author mechanism, with an admin exception for rare cases, would work. But please, talk about it, don't just diss Commons.

As for protecting every celebrity in "The Fappening", there's only so much we can do. If we froze every one of their articles so that nobody could add new images, then we'd be "punishing" them by hindering coverage. If people can add new images, they'll never all be protected. While it is fair to give special protection to Lawrence since she has been singled out here, it's not obvious that the people who didn't complain will be similarly targeted. We need to balance the risk -- hindering the flow of information to the 20,000 people day after day, month after month who view Lawrence's article, versus roughly 300 people who saw the picture during each of the two photo substitutions. To me, Wikipedia's purpose is supposed to be sharing information, and it deeply troubles me when people put the goal of blocking information so high above that this purpose isn't even weighed in the balance. Wnt (talk) 01:34, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

The image used in the infobox of our Jennifer Lawrence biography is also used in 32 other pages on other Wikipedias. I don't know how many people saw the naked image the first time it happened or the second time it happened or the time it happened here on Jimbo's talk page, but factor that in to your calculation. Remember that we are talking about a stolen private image of someone naked which appeared on one of the most popular sites in the world (Wikipedia)! It is entirely inexcusable. Legit Alternate Account (talk) 00:49, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

The Spanish and German versions seem to get about 1/10 the traffic of ours for this article ([17] [18]) and I assume most of the others are likely much less, so while it is true I should correct for this, it's maybe 400 instead of 300. Being "one of the most popular sites in the world" doesn't matter if people aren't actually visiting that article and seeing that image. I'm not saying that we want stolen images like this, but if 400000 people view our article every three weeks, we don't want their ability to read about Lawrence (including to read her up-to-date social commentary on this incident) to be unduly damaged to reduce the risk that 1/1000 of them could see one of these images posted contrary to our policy. Wnt (talk) 18:39, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

None of what has been discussed would in any way inhibit readers from accessing any article. Legit Alternate Account (talk) 20:54, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

I want to take a moment to really call out and thank two editors, Bawolff and especially Fæ, who responded to the comments at the "Better watchlisting" thread and came up with a workable, all-BLP watchlist that allows people patrolling Commons uploads to spot this sort of reupload vandalism. Their solution, implemented via Faebot on Commons, could still be improved on (there is still a 15-minute refresh rate in having the bot update the statistics) but it is already a timely extra line of defense that will genuinely improve the response time to at least some incidents of this kind. Wnt (talk) 18:39, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

This will do nothing to prevent another incident. Any unprotected image can be replaced by a stolen image of Jennifer Lawrence (or the infamous goatse image or anything else). Dheyward has pointed out that we can't even manage to get all the images featured on the main page protected, so I have lost any hope that this will get dealt with. Legit Alternate Account (talk) 20:54, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

The thing is, we can't prevent such images from being shared and have an encyclopedia that people can edit. There's nothing at all to stop the vandal from taking a "Fappening" photo and uploading it as a fresh file, adding it to any article in the encyclopedia. We're never going to have 100% vandalism-proof articles. And really, we shouldn't hope to. Vandalism is merely the brutish nose of reality intruding into our antiseptic little space, and as long as it doesn't disrupt operations, it's not a big deal, or even altogether negative. Vandalism reminds us that it's not our place to completely stop people from communicating even things they ought not; it reminds us that our articles are not perfect and invulnerable, but the fallible work of fallible human beings. Every variety of beauty is rooted in what is ugly - take away the potential to be ugly, and the beauty is also gone. No luscious apple without a stem, no lovely midriff without a navel, no pretty blue sky without a blazing sun. And the beauty of crowdsourcing, likewise, is rooted in the primordial vandalistic impulse to change things up - it is a logical impossibility to remove the potential for "bad" posting completely and not destroy the ability to improve the articles. But what we can do is get a lot of eyes on the most vulnerable content in a hurry, and limit the overall impact to something negligible. Wnt (talk) 23:49, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

That was beautiful. All I would add is to quote Meatball wiki - "Soft security is not weak security.". Bawolff (talk) 12:33, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Well.... despite my liking for that page's sentiment, I should note that the front page of MeatballWiki asks participants to use real names, is read-only, and contains at least three spam links in the "Joining" paragraph; the site as a whole I think has no recent changes for the past week. :( Wnt (talk) 14:44, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Obvious suggestions

Since @NeilN: asked me, here are some of the obvious suggestions to deal with this problem:

(1) Don't allow brand new accounts to replace existing images.

(2) Images that are uploaded to Commons should be approved by someone before they can be used. I'm not the first person to suggest this, but it doesn't hurt to repeat the suggestion. Why would you let anyone upload random images and not check them for copyright status, personality rights, & etc before you let anyone with an internet connection see and use them? That doesn't make any sense to me.

Things that won't work: protecting images after vandals have already used them or protecting all of the images of Jennifer Lawrence (for example). Any image can be replaced with a naked picture of Jennifer Lawrence. My thanks to the vandal who made that point clear on this very page a few minutes ago. Legit Alternate Account (talk) 21:23, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

The first one would be good (though exceptions should be made for own files), but the second one... it would be like turning on flagged revisions across all of wikipedia. In a way it makes sense, but it goes against the idea that "anyone can edit". -mattbuck (Talk) 22:28, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

It doesn't prevent anyone from uploading pictures, it just requires that the pictures are approved before they can be used. How does that go against "anyone can edit"? Legit Alternate Account (talk) 22:34, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

@Mattbuck: Any idea how many images are uploaded to Commons every day? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 22:53, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Well, this is going to be very unscientific, but looking at commons:Special:NewFiles, the first 200 take us back roughly 20mins. -mattbuck (Talk) 23:20, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes, but what percentage of uploaded images are actually used in articles? I did a similarly unscientific check of about two dozen images added 24 hours ago, and found only one used -- a rate of under 5%. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 00:47, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

I think any approval process would have to be at the Wikipedia-level (when an unchecked image is added to an article), not at the Commons level, as there's too much incoming trivial stuff to wade through. If approval implies you've checked for copyright violations then that significantly adds to the time (there have been instances where it's taken me ~10 minutes to properly ascertain the copyright status for an image). For a first cut, approval might mean the image isn't obviously inappropriate. This would require software changes which prompts the question, how prevalent is this problem? I know we've had a recent spate of high profile incidents but the addition of inappropriate images (content-wise, not referring to copyright) to articles is something I rarely come across. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 01:34, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

If the answer for not checking that each uploaded image satisfies the criteria that Commons has defined is that "it takes too long" then why bother setting criteria at all? Legit Alternate Account (talk) 03:54, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

This doesn't seem to make sense. It's like asking if your speed isn't monitored at all times, why bother setting a speed limit at all? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 09:26, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes, that is like that. Or, the situation on Commons is like saying that guns and bombs aren't allowed on planes, but we don't bother to check you or your carry-on luggage. Analogies are fun. Legit Alternate Account (talk) 14:53, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

So you're comparing paid staff checking for objects used to commit terrorism to unpaid volunteers checking for copyright violations. How absurd. Do you want to apply pending changes on every Wikipedia article as well? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:02, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

I would rather discuss ways to fix the problem than get involved in debating details of poor analogies. You seem to be resistant to looking at any changes to the status quo. Legit Alternate Account (talk) 15:22, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Actually, I sketched out a first cut solution along with a question. You replied with the unhelpful "why have any rules at all?" --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:30, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Checking images at each Wikipedia when they are added to an article would do nothing to mitigate the problem of replacing the existing image on Commons. Legit Alternate Account (talk) 15:36, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

mattbuck has already said your first point was good. I'm trying to address your second point. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:41, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Flagged revision of upload is not gonna work efficiently in any case. But I have a third suggestion: Anyone who wants to upload new image to Commons has to be at least autoconfirmed user in any Wikimedia project assuming they're using global account. So this new rule would not affect those experienced normal users who seldom upload image to Commons but actually prevent brand new accounts from making disruptive upload. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk) 03:32, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Why should an user who's only interested in donating photos be forced to make text edits? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 03:36, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

The threshold of passing autoconfirmed in English Wikipedia is sufficiently low. If a brand new user dreadfully wants to make massive uploads on Commons, they can ask another user for proxy upload, so the files are at least (theoretically) examined by a 3rd party who has at least some basic knowledge of our policies. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk) 04:25, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Slow down there. I see no reason to assume that this couldn't work efficiently. For one thing, it might be useful to distinguish between people who upload one, two, or ten images and people who upload hundreds of images at a time. Let's ignore the massive, semi-automated uploads from Flickr and other known sources. How many images are uploaded per day (excluding bulk uploads and bot uploads)? Legit Alternate Account (talk) 03:53, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

@NeilN:, any thoughts? Legit Alternate Account (talk) 15:37, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

@Legit Alternate Account: You're looking for stats I can't give you. Maybe the WMF should get a staffer to come up with these numbers along with answering the questions I posed above? What we're talking about requires a software change which in turn needs a justification. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:49, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

A really obvious solution is not to have images in those articles. Images aren't a requirement and notable celebrities have enough external links if people need pictures (maybe we need a "no image" page protection flag). We've always had vandalism and can never stop it completely. Even with lockdowns, the images will move to other areas. e.g. do we prevent uploads for images in the main page? BTW, I'd also suggest checkusering all uploaders of the material and storing that information for either law enforcement or civil suit. If any of the women have filed, it might be in WMF's interest to join them as victims in any class action as a show of support and access to logs of uploaders, page views, etc. --DHeyward (talk) 16:53, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Images which are used on the main page of Wikipedia are always protected from changes (for exactly this reason). Legit Alternate Account (talk) 00:53, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Go check the images. One was fixed after I pointed it out, the bot broke and there was an incident Monday of a pornographic replacement. How hard would it be to replace the Picture of the Day (it's wide open as are the other ones except the one I pointed out elsewhere). --DHeyward (talk) 05:34, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

In that case, I give up. We deserve whatever we get. Legit Alternate Account (talk) 13:06, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

I do have an alternative solution: Currently, Commons has a different autoconfirmed requirement than Wikipedia does. On Commons, you become autoconfirmed if you create an account and wait 4 days, no edits are required. I believe that that is a giant oversight that should be fixed; 10 edits should be mandatory to become auto confirmed. That's the first bit. The second bit is that non confirmed accounts are not allowed to upload new photos of established images that are not their own. These two technical restrictions would go a long way; It will still allow users who seldom upload photos to commons to release their images under a free license, and reupload better versions of their images, since they will be allowed to upload new versions of their own images but not allow them to upload a new image to an established image without at least making 10 edits in all to Commons. I believe it balances out the 'everyone can contribute' bit of commons with the nature of caution of brand new accounts uploading vandalism images to commons. Tutelary (talk) 23:59, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

@Tutelary: What are they going to edit on Commons? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:19, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Well generally, people on commons don't usually edit much outside when they first upload and maybe a few edits altering small details on the file. The restriction of allowing them to only upload new versions of their images wouldn't matter much since only a small majority would actually want to upload a new version of a file that's not their own. Very few people on commons do specialized image enhancement work and would need to upload a new version. Those that do easily amass 10 edits patrolling. I've seen maybe 10 since I've been lurking, it just doesn't happen very often. But for an exact answer to your question, probably asking questions, getting into patroller work, that type of stuff would add to that count. Tutelary (talk) 00:25, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

@Tutelary: So this new auto-confirm level would only affect the ability of replacing pictures not your own? If so, good idea. BTW, a new report has been made available. [19] --NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:30, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes, and I see that Fae's watchlist is a good thing as well, but it'll only catch it after it happens, whereas I think what we're looking for is a solution to prevent it. Tutelary (talk) 00:38, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

One other suggestion: krinklebot was fixed and protects images on commons that are transcluded to wikipedia main page. I don't see why we couldn't extend this to all images transcluded to wikipedia. People would be able to upload new images, but images used on Wikipedia would be protected until reviewed/requested. That would fix a lot of problems. --DHeyward (talk) 05:12, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

My two cents' worth: this is a difficult problem to solve if the vandal has an autoconfirmed account. Protecting a specific image is only a partial solution, as it would prevent only misuse of that image. Some articles may need a new type of protection which prevents images from being changed without review by a trusted user.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:33, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

I was thinking of a "reviewer" right at commons where the image version Wikipedia pointed to was static until accepted at commons. It allows updates and allows usage of new commons images but it stops those images from appearing on wikipedia. We have reviewer privilege at WP so it seems the code is in place. The last piece is a bot to canvass all images in WP and flag them for "reviewer" at commons. --DHeyward (talk) 07:04, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Some images are hosted locally on Wikipedia. The good news is that abusive image uploads are usually spotted and deleted very quickly, but user accounts with a very short edit history should not be allowed to add or change images without a review. At the moment, it is too easy for a person to wait for an account on Wikipedia or Commons to become autoconfirmed, then do whatever they like as long as the article or image are not fully protected. The current WP:AUTOCONFIRM time span of four days or 10 edits on the English Wikipedia is too short IMHO. It should be more like one month and 100 edits before the user can add or change images without a review.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 07:40, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

I could accept that for changes to other people's images (reupload right), but the problem I have with limiting ordinary uploads is that many people will first get involved with Commons after they've just snapped a bunch of educational photos - back from the museum, back from a trip to India, digging out after the tornado, whatever - and if we don't let them have a quick route to upload those photos to Commons (the usual destination) what's going to happen is they'll put away their photos, get settled back in at work, and forget all about us. And we will never get the license to copy those photos even if they distributed them on some other image sharing site using (generally) a more restrictive default. Wnt (talk) 17:53, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

That's exactly it. If an image is currently being used in WP, a trusted reviewer is required for an "update." Randomly uploading images is fine and commons can be a repository for whatever those uploaders choose. When they want to include their images in an article, it's either a new reference/file which is subject to WP article control or they have to overwrite an image of the same name which is "reviewer" controlled. If we don't like the control being with Commons reviewers, make it version lockable at the WP article. --DHeyward (talk) 05:27, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps the most affected articles should be put on pending changes. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:24, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

The issue is image updates on commons are reflected immediately regardless of WP. No article edit is required. The main page normally bot locks Commons images but not regular articles. A "pending changes" at Commons would help but I can replace an unprotected image with an "update file" action at commons and there is no change to the WP article except the image is updated. --DHeyward (talk) 05:27, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Here's what krinklebot protects for the EN main page [20]. The main page is at the mercy of this commons bot working. Why we wouldn't extend this for every image used on WP currrently doesn't seem to be overly burdensome considering we are ceding all this power to commons anyway. --DHeyward (talk) 05:39, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Hello one and want to start a new wiki page

I do not know what but then help thanks in advance — Preceding unsigned comment added by Levente 2 (talk • contribs) 09:24, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

@Levente 2: Please see Wikipedia:FAQ. -mattbuck (Talk) 12:35, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Look, editing the English language Wikipedia when you don't speak English is pretty much impossible - I suspect you're using an auto-translate, and they just do not work well enough. You really should stick to your own language Wikipedia, which I think is Hungarian? Neatsfoot (talk) 12:43, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

you do not seem interested in the plans from one — Preceding unsigned comment added by Levente 2 (talk • contribs) 14:51, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

My advice would also be to write it in Magyar (or whatever your native language is) and then work to get it translated into English. There are more than 800 articles a day started at English-WP and about 80 to 100 a day that end up running afoul of Articles for Deletion (not to mention other forms of deletion), so you will need to be sure to have things sourced up well enough to meet En-WP's standards if you port something over from another Wikipedia. That certainly seems the way to proceed, however. Best of luck, —Tim //// Carrite (talk) 17:00, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
OK, here's the problem - "you do not seem interested in the plans from one" does not make sense! And that's because you can not speak English! If you can not speak English, then you can not contribute to the English language Wikipedia! (Is there anybody here who can speak Hungarian and can translate it for him and perhaps explain on his talk page?) Neatsfoot (talk) 18:40, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Mentioned at AN/I

Jimbo: A suggestion you have been said to have made regarding banned users has been mentioned here at AN/I and I have taken issue with it; accordingly notifying you. Yngvadottir (talk) 17:43, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

I have responded at your talk page. In short, you have badly misunderstood me and insulted me for no reason.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 20:53, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Hijack of History, Censorship, and Conspiracy AT WIKIPEDIA64.134.44.75 (talk) 19:30, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

More conspiracy-theory trolling

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

There appears to be a conspiracy to limit the public information about Obamacare on Wikipedea. Some individuals with an agenda are trying to limit coverage. It appears that User:AndyTheGrump,User:HJ Mitchell, User:DangerousPanda User:Bbb23, User:Fiddle Faddle, and User:DrFleischman are engaged in a conspiracy to limit history, censorship and abuse of power. My associate, tried to create a new page to document the Legal Challenges to the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. All traces to that effort are erased. The alleged reasons for deletion and refusal were obscure, one reason was because it was “FICTION”. The latest reason stated was (Inappropriate recreation of an inappropriate draft of an inappropriate article), please Investigate or try adding it yourself. Save history!!! WHY IS THIS AN "inappropriate article"?

Below is what was there:

Legal Challenges to the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Since the passage of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, there have been numerous actions in federal courts to challenge the legality of the legislation.[1][2] This article describes the challenges by date and case number of every case mounted against the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. Format is date, case number, court, Constitutional Challenge [Y/N] All references should include date filed, actual government case number designations and status.

On July 29, 2014, (1:14-cv-01287-RBW)United States District Court for the District of Columbia. Constitutional Challenge [Y]. The State of West Virginia v United States HHS,et al was filed which challenges the "Administrative Fix" and other constitutional violations of the law. State of West Virginia has filed a Motion for Summary Judgment. Defendant (HHS) has requested an extension of time to respond until October 17, 2014. ^[1]^[2]

On December 31, 2013, (1:13-cv-02066-CKK/14-5183)United States District Court for the District of Columbia. Constitutional Challenge [Y]. Cutler v. United States Department of Health and Human Services, et al. Cutler challenges the constitutionality of the Act, both on its face and as applied to him and his constituents. Cutler asserts that the provision requiring individuals to obtain health insurance coverage or face monetary penalties violates the religion clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution and a previous Supreme Court Decision , “1947 Everson v Board of Education”, and allows the government to favor one religion over another religion. The process of empowering the United States Government to Certify that applicable individual is part of EXEMPT RELIGION or SECT, Cutler seeks a declaration that the Act is unconstitutional, invalid, and unenforceable. Cutler also seeks to "rollback" the law to the status it had prior to 2014 on various grounds, arguing that the law NOW violates the Constitution by allowing unequal protection under the law.(If You Like Your Plan, You Can Keep Your PLAN till October 1, 2016, but only if the insurance commissioner of your state agrees^[3]). The federal government's motion for complete dismissal is under review, as is the plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment. Notice of Appeal was filed on July 25, 2014. On August 11, 2014 a notice of related case was filed for the case of State of West Virginia v United States HHS,et al (1:14-cv-01287-RBW). Lawyers from the American Freedom Law Center are handling the appeal. On October 16, 2014 an injunction pending appeal was filed based on "unequal treatment under the law".^[4]^[5]^[6]

On October 30, 2013, (1:13-cv-01214-WCG/14-2123}. United States District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin. Constitutional Challenge [Y]. Association of American Physicians & Surgeons and Robert T. McQueeney, MD v IRS. On September 22, 2014, the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Chicago affirmed a Wisconsin federal judge's decision to dismiss a lawsuit filed last October by the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons, Inc., and Robert T. McQueeney, who treat patients on a cash basis, and want to prevent everyone from being required to be covered by health insurance. The plaintiffs had sought an injunction blocking the IRS from collecting the penalty in 2014, on the argument that it would violate the Tenth Amendment and separation of powers. ^[7] ^[8]

On July 26, 2010, (1:10-cv-01263-RJL/13-5202)United States District Court for the District of Columbia. Constitutional Challenge [Y]. Sissel v United States HHS,et al was filed which challenges the "Individual Mandate" and other constitutional violations of the law. The case was amended to challenge the constitutionality as a violation of the “Origination Clause” of the constitution . On July 29, 2014 the court rejected plaintiff's argument that the fact that Section 5000A may have been enacted solely pursuant to the taxing power brought it within the ambit of the Origination Clause, noting that many exercises of taxing power have a primary purpose other than raising of revenue and thus are not governed by the Origination Clause at all. ^[9]^[10]

[1] ttp://washington.cbslocal.com/2014/07/30/west-virginia-attorney-general-suing-white-house-over-obamacare/

[2] ttp://www.pacer.gov

[3] ttp://www.cms.gov/CCIIO/Resources/Regulations-and-Guidance/Downloads/transition-to-compliant-policies-03-06-2015.pdf

[4] ttp://www.pacer.gov

[5] ttp://www.americanfreedomlawcenter.org/case/jeffrey-cutler-v-u-s-dept-of-health-human-services/

[6] ttp://www.jsonline.com/blogs/news/275834801.html

[7] ttp://apps.americanbar.org/ababoards/blog/blogpost.cfm?threadid=30967&catid=14929

[8] ttp://www.pacer.gov

[9] ttp://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelcannon/2014/10/15/how-obamacares-victories-count-against-it-in-sissel-v-hhs/

[10] ttp://washington.cbslocal.com/2014/07/30/west-virginia-attorney-general-suing-white-house-over-obamacare/

[11] ttp://www.pacer.gov

[12] ttp://www.cms.gov/CCIIO/Resources/Regulations-and-Guidance/Downloads/transition-to-compliant-policies-03-06-2015.pdf

[13] ttp://www.pacer.gov

[14] ttp://www.americanfreedomlawcenter.org/case/jeffrey-cutler-v-u-s-dept-of-health-human-services/

[15] ttp://www.pacer.gov

[16] ttp://www.jsonline.com/blogs/news/275834801.html

[17] ttp://apps.americanbar.org/ababoards/blog/blogpost.cfm?threadid=30967&catid=14929

[18] ttp://www.pacer.gov

[19] ttp://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelcannon/2014/10/15/how-obamacares-victories-count-against-it-in-sissel-v-hhs/

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[9]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[9]

[10]