User talk:Jimbo Wales/Archive 189

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 185

←

Archive 187

→

Page Weight Matters

Background: Page Weight Matters, by Chris Zacharias

"Three years ago, while I was a web developer at YouTube, one of the senior engineers began a rant about the page weight of the video watch page being far too large. The page had ballooned to as high as 1.2MB and dozens of requests. This engineer openly vented that “if they can write an entire Quake clone in under 100KB, we have no excuse for this!” Given that I agreed with him and I was excited to find a new project, I decided to champion the cause of getting the YouTube watch page to weigh in under 100KB. On the shuttle home from San Bruno that night, I coded up a prototype. I decided to limit the functionality to just a basic masthead, the video player, five related videos, a sharing button, a flagging tool, and ten comments loaded in via AJAX. I code-named the project “Feather”.

"Even with such a limited set of features, the page was weighing in at 250KB. I dug into the code and realized that our optimization tools (i.e. Closure compilation) were unable to exclude code that was never actually used in the page itself (which would be an unfair expectation of any tool under the circumstances). The only way to reduce the code further was to optimize by hand the CSS, Javascript, and image sprites myself. After three painstaking days, I had arrived at a much leaner solution. It still was not under 100KB though. Having just finished writing the HTML5 video player, I decided to plug it in instead of the far heavier Flash player. Bam! 98KB and only 14 requests. I threaded the code with some basic monitoring and launched an opt-in to a fraction of our traffic.

"After a week of data collection, the numbers came back… and they were baffling. The average aggregate page latency under Feather had actually INCREASED. I had decreased the total page weight and number of requests to a tenth of what they were previously and somehow the numbers were showing that it was taking LONGER for videos to load on Feather. This could not be possible. Digging through the numbers more and after browser testing repeatedly, nothing made sense. I was just about to give up on the project, with my world view completely shattered, when my colleague discovered the answer: geography.

"When we plotted the data geographically and compared it to our total numbers broken out by region, there was a disproportionate increase in traffic from places like Southeast Asia, South America, Africa, and even remote regions of Siberia. Further investigation revealed that, in these places, the average page load time under Feather was over TWO MINUTES! This meant that a regular video page, at over a megabyte, was taking more than TWENTY MINUTES to load! This was the penalty incurred before the video stream even had a chance to show the first frame. Correspondingly, entire populations of people simply could not use YouTube because it took too long to see anything. Under Feather, despite it taking over two minutes to get to the first frame of video, watching a video actually became a real possibility. Over the week, word of Feather had spread in these areas and our numbers were completely skewed as a result. Large numbers of people who were previously unable to use YouTube before were suddenly able to.

"Through Feather, I learned a valuable lesson about the state of the Internet throughout the rest of the world. Many of us are fortunate to live in high bandwidth regions, but there are still large portions of the world that do not. By keeping your client side code small and lightweight, you can literally open your product up to new markets."

Source: [ http://blog.chriszacharias.com/page-weight-matters ]

(Emphasis added, capitalization in original.)

(Reproduced under fair use: "The first factor is regarding whether the use in question helps fulfill the intention of copyright law to stimulate creativity for the enrichment of the general public, or whether it aims to only 'supersede the objects' of the original for reasons of personal profit.")

Given the above, I think that we should start a project -- a real project with measurable goals and a schedule -- to reduce page weight. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:53, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

I would support this 100%. The amount of stuff that comes from bits.wikipedia.org seems to be very large, for example. However WP does well by not having dozens of external gadgets and widgets and trackers like many sites. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 15:15, 22 May 2015 (UTC).

I think our situation is a bit different now, because of the use of mobile. Folks in Siberia and Africa are likely now viewing Wikipedia on mobile (likely somewhat faster) than on just a slower version of our desktops. How weight affects mobile is something I don't really know. Perhaps the question might be whether we want different versions for regular vs. mobile articles? BTW, in general I do think about 5% of our articles go on too long - even if you can quickly skim a long article, there is a limit to that.

I do want to ask a related question - I'd asked at the village pump and editors didn't have much to say there. I'm working on a very long list, List of municipalities in Pennsylvania. There are 2562 munis in PA (likely the largest number in the US) and were 10 fields in the table. It sorts wonderfully and is very useful. I was quite surprised by this because at WP:NRHP we always would break up lists of 250+ because they loaded too slow and caused other problems like long times in saving the page. That was about 4 years ago though.

Someone suggested putting photos on the list, and we're now doing that as an informal project. Less than 1,000 pix to go. I don't see the size with the pix causing any slow loading or saving. The article size is now 320,686 bytes about twice the size of today's featured article on Rodents. My connection (in the US) is not particularly fast. But is this load going to cause other people problems? (Not too many Siberians will want to see the list of PA munis, but you never know) Will all the pix cause problems on mobile? Not that I'm thinking of doing it on this list, but how does video affect things?

--Smallbones_(smalltalk) 16:48, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Note that I removed the hatting on my related question. I had asked it before at the Village Pump with no real help forthcoming. I don't think that the Help Desk would do any better because it is a mixture of technical and policy questions. To spell it out, it is now possible to make a 3,000 item list/table on Wikipedia and include a few bells and whistles like photos and wiki-links. 1) How big can a table like this get, and how many bells and whistles can be added, before people start having difficulty in loading or saving it? 2) How well does an article like this work on mobile? Do we want to have different versions of lists like this for mobile? Smallbones_(smalltalk) 21:56, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Please ask your totally unrelated question in a new section. Hijacking my discussion is very rude, and I would advise others here to not reward your rude behavior by responding to you. --Guy Macon (talk) 05:13, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Optimizing for mobile (limited CPU power, small screen) is a different engineering challenge than optimizing for slow / expensive per-byte connections. I do a lot of work involving third-world countries, and in the very remote areas it is far more common to see a hundred laptops connecting through a single WIFI connection to a single DSL than it is to see a hundred smart phones connecting to a nearby cell tower. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:14, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Guy that was a fascinating story and very very relevant for us.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 17:31, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

I have made a couple of proposals to try to get such a project started (or at least considered), but they have gone nowhere:

I could, of course, post a policy RfC and get several hundred people to tell the WMF that yes, the English Wikipedia wants this to happen (and three people who support longer page load times...) and then spend a year pounding in the basic concept that unless there are published, measurable goals and a schedule it isn't a real project, but I would much prefer the WMF to support it because it is an obviously good idea. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:14, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

There's at least 1 question hidden in here that I don't think is obvious, though I'm not likely to be one of the 3 peeople who support longer load times. 1st I do think there is a lot of brick-a-brack in some articles like long infoboxes, and templates that link to every member of some group of topics (perhaps 3 topics of 80 items each). Those could obviously be removed - but how much "weight" is thereby removed? Is it just the article size (that you see in the article history page) that matters, or is it calls on computing power from templates that most matters? Rephrasing: do we want to minimize the number of characters typed in the file or the number of templates?

Also, there is material like photos and videos that I think are underused on Wikipedia. "A picture is worth a thousand words" may not apply to every article, but it probably does in articles on artists, museums, wildlife, and many other subjects. Our almost complete lack of video makes us one of the "least modern" websites around. I've met folks here who just don't see video as being an educational tool - everything that they consider to be educational can be written in words. I think that's dead wrong, consider which of the following gives more useful information a) an IPA phonetic transcription of how a person's name is pronounced, b) an audio recording of his or her voice pronouncing their name, or c) a 15 second video of the person introducing themselves? It's obvious to me that c is a clear winner.

So does this "minimizing weight" project mean returning to a low image, no video encyclopedia? That's a tradeoff that is more a policy issue than a technical one. I couldn't buy into that. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 21:56, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Actually, the number of characters is usually a very small portion of page weight. You can have a very large page that is pure text that has a very small page weight. It can be annoying for a human to read all of that, but it still loads very quickly. Templates don't matter other than the extra text and/or images they add to a page. At the level I am talking about, the only things that matter are the number of HTTP requests a page makes and the total number of bytes sent to the browser (the page weight).

Here are some page weight resources for the curious, but of course the Wikipedia developers I am trying to reach already know all about page weight.

--Guy Macon (talk) 05:13, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

I'm not an expert, but I think a simple way to lose "weight" is to lose Javascript. This can of course be done with a browser option, but not everyone knows how to use it. Also, even on the en.m. version of this page with scripts disabled, I still see script loaders in the source code. I know that shutting off scripts improves speed and has very few downsides - you lose sortable buttons, and no video I know of but animated gifs works without it, hidden text isn't hidden by default, and the Lua editor doesn't work. But 99.9% of the time this is of no importance, and there's some extra peace of mind about security. I think a Javascript-free version of each page (en.nojs.wikipedia?) would be useful. Wnt (talk) 15:16, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Again, how to reduce page weight is not the issue. Any competent engineer can do it without suggestions from us, and the WMF engineers have already done a lot of the easy stuff. What is left are things like this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Page has GZIP compression enabled.[1]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Page does not.[2]

The question is, is it possible to enable compression for HTTPS without opening ourselves up to a BREACH (security exploit)?

This requires research by a good engineer, and is not an issue that asking for opinions on Jimbo's talk page is likely to solve. As interesting as the topic is, we need to stop wasting our time talking about how to reduce page weight and concentrate on my proposal, which is to get someone at WMF assigned to working on page weight with with measurable goals and a schedule. They already know how to do it. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:00, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Are you sure that website works with HTTPS? I get my secure pages with gzip without issue. -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 17:22, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

I am using a customer computer at a remote site so I only have online tools at the moment. I looked up several more online tools. http://www.gidnetwork.com/tools/gzip-test.php shows the https as compressed, several others call the https version bad URL, and http://checkgzipcompression.com/ shows it as uncompressed. I will update this when I get home and am able to use tools that I trust. Until then I will assume that the gzip-test page is correct.

At the risk of straying even farther from my own topic, it would be interesting to see why the WMF engineers don't think BREACH (security exploit) is a problem. I am expecting something like "we looked into that and determined that using compression is safe in our situation". As I have often observed, they are pretty sharp and are unlikely to have missed something like this. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:39, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

I think checkgzipcompression.com is broken. Another test of richardstoolbox.com (verifysslcertificate.com) does not even recognize that Wikipedia has an SSL certificate. My info comes directly from the HTTP heades I receive. -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 23:11, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

I agree. it is broken.

At the suggestion of Anthonyhcole, I also brought this issue up at [ https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:LilaTretikov_%28WMF%29#Page_Weight_Matters ]. --Guy Macon (talk) 00:42, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Conclusion: It appears that, as is our tradition, I have completely failed to attract any attention or get any response from anyone involved in the engineering side of WMF, and this thread will be archived soon, so I invite anyone interested in this to continue the discussion at User talk:Guy Macon#Page weight. --Guy Macon (talk) 00:42, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

With regards to this...

...and with the choice of "Fight the power"... do you intend to declare war on your homeland? :-P

Other than that, considering British politicians were also previously interviewed, couldn't there have been more talk about their proposals to restrict and monitor the Internet? Not to mention banning HTTPS... -- Menti fisto 11:04, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

For some context here is a link to the BBC program Wales was on. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:03, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

RfC on acupuncture

Since you've previously made some strongly worded comments on alternative medicine, I feel that your input over here might be useful. -A1candidate 06:38, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

I will quote the substantive part of Jimbo's comment, which is indisputable: "If you can get your work published in respectable scientific journals - that is to say, if you can produce evidence through replicable scientific experiments, then Wikipedia will cover it appropriately." His well-known "lunatic charlatans" comment about people who operate outside that scientific framework was clear, and in my opinion, does not need to be reiterated. If Jimbo chooses to elaborate, then fine. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:56, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

My concern is that many editors, including at least one administrator, are misusing Jimbo Wales' comments. Notice the way in which a longstanding administrator quoted this essay during a recent arbitration request. -A1candidate 07:25, 23 May 2015 (

It's probably worth noting that the OP has just been given a 0RR restriction on acupuncture and 1RR on alt med more widely, by an uninvolved admin, and that he has tried several times to use Wikipedia processes to silence opponents, and failed every time. The "clean hands" doctrine is relevant here. Guy (Help!) 21:57, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

I dispute the validity of the restriction and will appeal it - because I have "clean hands". -A1candidate 21:59, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

So you say. Your edit history tells a rather different story. Guy (Help!) 09:04, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

A cup of tea for you!

Hi Jimmy,

I write in Bangla wikipedia. It's a kind of craze once you start writing for wiki. I love it, and I love people like you. By the way, I was born near a tea garden in the north-east of Bangladesh. Have a cup of tea.

Thank you so much for you got a great idea to change the world of information.

আবারো ভালবাসা ("love again", in Bangla)

Salman Md Habibur Rahman Salman (talk) 12:57, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Invitation

Hello mr Wales,

You are hereby invited for a suprise visit to our wikinic sunday juin 7, in Louveigné, place des Combattants (starts at 16 hours) in Belgium. We are looking forward have a few Belgium beers with you and listen to your wise words about wikipedia.

Wiknic/2015/Lieux/Belgique/Louveigné

Please donot respond! If you do it is not a suprise anymore ... Kolonel Zeiksnor (talk) 03:01, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

What a lovely idea. Indeed, if I could, I would not respond and I would surprise you. But as it turns out, it really is impossible for me.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 11:07, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Your comment in Radio Times

"When I first launched Wikipedia on 15 January 2001" [3]. This is the truth, but not the whole truth, and highly misleading. It was Larry Sanger who launched the wiki, under the domain Nupedia.com, on January 10 2001. This was immediately followed by a sort of mutiny among the Nupedia volunteers. Carl Anderson, Professor of Classical Studies, Michigan State University, called the wiki 'silliness'. Gaytha Langlois, Professor of Ecology, Bryant College, Smithfield, thought it was merely a “variation on structured chat rooms”. Nearly all the academics objected, apart from John Horvath.

To resolve this, you suggested installing 'the wiki' under a totally different brand name. "That way, we separate the wiki from the Nupedia brand name. It is very important to all of us who have an emotional stake in Nupedia that we not harm the reputation of Nupedia". Shortly after (January 12th) you dismissed the wiki as a sort of chat room, and not even that. " The wiki software, in its current incarnation, is so wide open that it is hard to see it’s [sic] purpose other than as a chat room mechanism of sorts. Even then, I don’t know ". Larry came up with the name ‘Wikipedia’, and the wiki was re-launched under Wikipedia.com, January 15 2001.

In your closing speech at Wikimania 2014, you said that truthfulness is something that is 'very, very valuable' . "Obviously truthfulness is very important if you're writing an encyclopedia, because you're not supposed to just make stuff up." Well truthfulness starts at home, right?

Peter Damian (talk) 13:12, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

So he told the truth but did not include the entire history of Wikipedia? What is your point? Chillum 13:21, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

See the whole truth. Peter Damian (talk) 13:26, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

While many people find Wikipedia a great place to spread truth, that is not really why we are here. Chillum 13:48, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

"Obviously truthfulness is very important if you're writing an encyclopedia, because you're not supposed to just make stuff up." Peter Damian (talk) 13:57, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Good job Wikipediocracy isn't about writing an encyclopedia, isn't it? Prioryman (talk) 22:24, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Wikipediocracy is about providing external commentary regarding operations of an encyclopedia — some hostile, some critical-but-friendly. It is also a social site. Carrite (talk) 13:38, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Comment - I think this is more about giving due credit to other people who've also played a key role in creating Wikipedia in its original form. It is not about "spreading the truth", but simply setting the record straight. I doubt Jimbo Wales had any intention to hide the truth, but I have to say that unless one is the sole creator of something or some idea, it's always more ethicial to share credit with others ("We launched Wikipedia") rather than crediting yourself only ("I created Wikipedia"). I'm not too familiar with the history of Wikipedia, but if Peter Damian's statement is correct, then I tend to agree with him that "truthfulness starts at home" and we should focus on being more truthful instead of holding the moral high ground and going as far as to accuse others of deceit. -A1candidate 14:34, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

To be fair, it is hard to tell the "origins" story concisely. But a little less "I" and a little more "we" in the phrasing would be advisable. Carrite (talk) 16:17, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

In fairness, please read Jimbo's entire sentence instead of the OP's selected snippet: "When I first launched Wikipedia on 15 January 2001 there was only a very small number of people giving their time to write articles, but we had a big ambition: to give everybody in the world free access to the sum of all human knowledge through an online encyclopedia edited entirely by volunteers." He is talking about other people also, and uses the word "we". Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 17:15, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

This is still not consistent with Jimbo's statement at the time that "The wiki software, in its current incarnation, is so wide open that it is hard to see it’s [sic] purpose other than as a chat room mechanism of sorts. Even then, I don’t know ". I don't see how that is consistent with the "we had a big ambition" bit. Or was he referring to Nupedia in the BBC interview? Peter Damian (talk) 19:08, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

When you were unblocked, it was obvious that most of the people who (ill-advisedly in my view) voted for it thought you would spend your time more productively in future trying to improve the encyclopedia rather than engaging in the drama and attention-seeking that got you kicked out in the first place. So far you don't seem to be doing a great job proving them right. Prioryman (talk) 21:26, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Yes, this might be a case of trying to right a perceived great wrong. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:59, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Bottom line, this is episode 54,745 in Wikipediocracy's futile quest to harpoon the Great White Wales once and for all. We need a term for people who obsess over who founded Wikipedia in much the same vein as birthers obsess over Barack Obama's birth certificate. For his part, I'd suggest that Peter Damian reflect on the fate of Captain Ahab. Prioryman (talk) 22:20, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

.....and episode 36,221 in the ongoing effort to discredit a message board by painting it as monolithic and ascribing base motives to a single commenter as a vehicle for taking a potshot. Carrite (talk) 13:36, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

The more I read this discussion, the more I am convinced that Peter Damian may be right. This article in The Atlantic explicitly says: "Most of Nupedia’s expert volunteers, however, wanted nothing to do with this, so Sanger decided to launch a separate site called “Wikipedia.”" Can someone verify if the claim is backed up by other sources? At this point in time, I would really appreciate some clarification from Jimmy Wales. Remember, I am not accusing anyone of wrongdoing, just seeking an explanation that I believe the community deserves. -A1candidate 22:08, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

@User:A1candidate The Atlantic is correct that the expert volunteers wanted nothing to do with the wiki, as it was then called. It is not correct, as far as I know, that Larry decided to launch the separate site. That was Jimmy's decision. But the reason, as I point out below, was to avoid harming Nupedia. Jimmy fully supported the academics in their revolt against the 'silliness' of the wiki. The important thing is the reason it was done. Peter Damian (talk) 10:28, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

I suspect that much of 'the community' doesn't actually care that much about who exactly did what and when. This is an online encyclopaedia, not a religious cult, and creation myths have very little to do with the day-to-day running of the project. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:24, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Equally shocked and relieved that I've actually been trapped in a very damp bog for the past eight years. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:30, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

I'll answer a few of the questions that have been raised in this thread, but I very strongly agree with those who point out that this is typical Peter Damian drama mongering. I'll go a step further, and call attention to his typical style: he claims there is an inconsistency between "The wiki software, in its current incarnation, is so wide open that it is hard to see it’s [sic] purpose other than as a chat room mechanism of sorts..." and "we had a big ambition". What possible inconsistency could he mean? He doesn't explain and there obviously is no inconsistency.

Some information about the software at that stage - there were no passwords. There was no genuine concept of a user account. You could assign yourself a name, but anyone else could use the same name. There was no genuine concept of deletion other than going to the command line and literally deleting files (there was no database of any kind - articles were stored in individual files.) At that time, even editing an article too many times (it started at 5 if I remember correctly) would cause the oldest version to disappear forever. The software was very primitive and very wide open.

So - exactly as I said - the state of the software at that time (Usemod wiki) was so wide open that it was hard to imagine it serving as much more than a glorified chat room. There was no concept, even, of "talk pages" - Tim Shell came up with that idea and we started causally using it by appending /Talk on article names - the software itself didn't support it.

At the same time - we had a big ambition. The ambition was my vision of creating a free encyclopedia for everyone. (Was it my vision? We'll let Larry Sanger speak to that: "To be clear, the idea of an open source, collaborative encyclopedia, open to contribution by ordinary people, was entirely Jimmy's, not mine".)

I have said many times, and I stand by it, that Larry Sanger deserves more credit than he usually gets for his work in the early days.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 09:29, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

There is no drama mongering. The inconsistency is that Jimmy implies that in 'launching Wikipedia', the purpose was giving "everybody in the world free access to the sum of all human knowledge" etc. It implies that was the reason he set up Wikipedia (i.e. a Cunningham wiki on 'Wikipedia.com' on January 15. But it wasn't the reason. Larry set the wiki up on January 10, at nupedia.com. That's five days before 'wikipedia.com'. When he announced this, there was an immediate revolt on the mailing list. Opponents included Michael Kulikowski, professor of medieval history ('a gimmick'), Carl Anderson, Professor of Classical Studies, Michigan State University ('silliness'), David Spurrett, Lecturer in Philosophy at University of Natal (“Big wiki with a side-show encyclopaedia”), Gaytha Langlois, Professor of Ecology, Bryant College, Smithfield (“variation on structured chat rooms”).

This was why Jimmy suggested installing the wiki under a different 'brand name'. "That way, we separate the wiki from the Nupedia brand name. It is very important to all of us who have an emotional stake in Nupedia that we not harm the reputation of Nupedia. Nupedia, in my mind, _stands for something_ -- quality in an age of declining standards, openness in an age of mad scrambling for proprietariness". Note the idea that the wiki might 'harm the reputation of Nupedia'.

Michael Kulikowski agreed. "Jimmy's suggestion is very reasonable and I think we should adopt it. The wiki in itself is not a bad idea, and might, perhaps, gain us some supporters. Nevertheless, dissociating the Nupedia "brand name" from what *might* (by stodgy academics like myself) be perceived as the unserious wiki is, in my view, essential. MK"

The full context of the 'chat room' remark was this. "If we divide ourselves into two camps here (which we shouldn’t), the “conservatives” and the “progressives”, then I usually side with the “progressives”. (I don’t many [sic] _any_ political connotations here, I am referring to how cautious, academic we are versus how aggressive, open we are.) But in this case, I tend to side with the conservatives. The wiki software, in its current incarnation, is so wide open that it is hard to see it’s purpose other than as a chat room mechanism of sorts. Even then, I don’t know".

I read this as Jimmy saying he doesn't normally take sides, but in this case he sides with the conservative academics, and wants to separate the Nupedia brand from the wiki, which might harm the academic reputation of Nupedia, and which has no purpose that he can see.

So there is the inconsistency. Jimmy did not set up Wikipedia with the purpose of giving everybody in the world free access to the sum of all human knowledge. That was the purpose of Nupedia. The purpose of setting up Wikipedia was to avoid harming Nupedia. Peter Damian (talk) 10:16, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

I didn't realise you were actually there, Peter. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:51, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

And the purpose of Peter Damian is...? The amusing feature for disinterested onlookers is the naive assumption lurking in the above "analysis" that the development of Wikipedia had a single cause, and that a considerate off-the-cuff statement was necessarily the full story. Johnuniq (talk) 10:53, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

"Jimmy did not set up Wikipedia with the purpose of giving everybody in the world free access to the sum of all human knowledge. That was the purpose of Nupedia." - so there can't be more than one thing with the same purpose? Mr Potto (talk) 11:00, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

The quote presented above shows Jimbo Wales wanting to create Wikipedia in order to preserve the integrity of Nupedia. When it was Nupedia's "purpose of giving everybody in the world free access to the sum of all human knowledge" any action to safeguard that goal can legitimately be described as subscribing to that same goal... what a load of crap to attempt fantasizing an alternative creation myth... take it elsewhere as suggested above. --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:22, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Maybe we should call him Papa Wales. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:33, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

These are all interesting remarks. Peter Damian (talk) 11:59, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

As someone who !voted "Strong Support" of Peter Damian's return to WP, I am disappointed by this discussion. It starts with what seems, to me, to be a loaded question. Despite my best efforts, it is hard to see what is expected to be accomplished:

A response from Jimmy that is a contrite "mea culpa, you caught me, thank goodness you raised this question raised many times before by others",
A series of responses, some less than civil, from those who see this as a never-ending grinding of axes, or,
A gleeful blog article or discussion thread (or both) on the "criticism of Wikipedia site", WO.

We've gotten 2. If it hasn't happened already, expect 3. JoeSperrazza (talk) 13:03, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Regarding item 3, as predicted, Peter Damian started a thread at WO today. A follow-up post to mock the responses (per my item 2) is made there by him less than one hour later. Per WP:DENY, I recommend that someone please close and collapse this thread. JoeSperrazza (talk) 13:30, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Regardless of Wales perception of the events surrounding the founding of WP, it appears that these days the media is disregarding the WMF spin and conforming to Wales WP BLP by referencing him as co-founder. NY Times The Mirror The Guardian BBC. The fact that the Radio Times article does not do this only underscores the paper's cooperation with Wales and his self serving promotional piece to advertise his latest for-profit venture.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 15:29, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Detail: Referring to Peter Damian [4] and others’ [5] edit warring to prevent the close of this section that has lost usefulness, suggesting “Surely this is for Jimbo to do?”, refer (among other places) to Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Banning_Policy#Statement_by_Jimbo_Wales. There, @Jimbo Wales: states:

There is fairly universal agreement and understanding that there is an important reason why my talk page has to be handled somewhat differently from others as a traditional space to have philosophical debates about the principles of the project, and for editors with grievances to have a chance to be heard. That openness to criticism and debate is part of what has made Wikipedia successful. At the same time, ending useless conversations with people who have no interest in actually fixing anything is also part of what has made Wikipedia successful. The difference between the two will always be difficult to draw.

Further comment from Jimbo is not likely. I think most would agree that even if this did start as a “useful conversations” (i.e., a philosophical debates about the principles of the project, nor about grievances of the original poster - although the OP’s actions suggest its purpose was to generate commentary to then be mocked off-Wiki), it has certainly devolved into a “useless conversation”. Thus, it would be a reasonable thing to close this section, and one clearly supported by past precedent (discussed many times at this talk page) as well as by Jimbo’s comments I referenced.

TLDR: WP:DNFTT. JoeSperrazza (talk) 16:36, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

I object to this unilateral close. The editor that some found offensive is no longer dominating the conversation. Jimbo has commented on his own behalf. I don't see this thread as essentially any different than dozens of prior ones that discuss a recent media report about WP and Wales' role as co-founder and spokesperson. It could be that the discussion is done but in either case I think it should be allowed follow its natural course.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 16:50, 25 May 2015 (UTC)-- — Keithbob • Talk • 16:52, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Per Keithbob's objection, I have reverted the hatting. I also object to characterizing Peter Damian as a "troll" and using the WP:DENY verbiage against him. Carrite (talk) 19:43, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

It is not very productive to drag up the Jimbo founded/co-founded Wikipedia debate for the umpteenth time. I supported the hatting as the debate had run its course.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 20:12, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

I do not know any of Peter's history but this thread seems to fit the definition in the first paragraph of Internet troll. Nyth 63 20:23, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

The thread is pointless, it is going round in circles and getting out of control which is why I hatted it. It was originally hatted by @Prioryman:, presumably for the same reason. --5 albert square (talk) 20:27, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

If the discussion is done, OK, let the thread end like any other. No reason to censor it because some feel it's pointless.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 20:32, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Peter Damian brought here some straight and unambiguous facts regarding the origins of the Wikipedia. The facts possibly contradict Jimbo's claims in a recent interview, but they seem to be supported by relevant evidence. Peter Damian laid out some questions, maybe not packed in a nice pink box (...truthfulness starts at home...), but fair questions laid out straightly, without any apparent intention to discredit anyone. I think that it is a big mistake to confuse this attitude with trolling. I also think it is a mistake to start a response by pointing to someone's "typical" (bad) behavioral patterns. By this, you try to discredit the messenger before you actually address the message. I learn to avoid such generalization and grudge-bearing in real life, and also here on Wikipedia.

It is very difficult to retain opinion consistency in the Internet age, as we are changing and we forget while the Internet memory is frozen and unforgiving, always prepared to convict us of "our sins". We are different people than we were 10 or 15 years ago, but it doesn't mean it is a crime to question our past claims.

At the end, this conversation led to subsequent clarifications in the article History of Wikipedia, which were not questioned by anyone, for the time being. It is an interesting and productive conversation, in my opinion, even if not comfortable for everyone. --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 08:55, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

→ Talk:History of Wikipedia#Disputed edit --Francis Schonken (talk) 06:57, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

No, it's (sic) tiresome because, no matter how politely worded, it's (hic) just another round in the same camaign that some feel the need to continue and still boils down to trolling. Nyth 63 13:22, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

If you are tired don't watch/comment here and try another activity, for a while. Some people might strive for accuracy and truth in a persistent and thorough way which might be confused with trolling by others. It's a matter of interpretation. --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 14:59, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Icky, you just proved my point. Nyth 63 16:48, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

You mean you have confused striving for accuracy and truth in a persistent and thorough way with trolling? Peter Damian (talk) 18:30, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

"Icky" I see an open, somewhat loaded question and I also see just plain name-calling personal attacks. One of these people is trolling here. (hint: It's not Peter) KonveyorBelt 21:05, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

For the record, see I was wrong, and I apologize…. JoeSperrazza (talk) 18:56, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Joe, I put a note on your talk page but I also wanted to thank you here for your willingness to self-correct. I know you were acting in good faith with the best of intentions. Cheers!-- — Keithbob • Talk • 15:04, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Ok, I apologize for the poor guess on the diminutive for Vejvančický But I was being lazy and did not feel like trying to copy/paste from my ipad. Did not think that someone would find a way to be offended by that choice. Perhaps the user in question could provide a suggestion. This continual use of buzz phrases like accuracy and truth or persistent and thorough feels like window dressing on an attempt to stir things up. I don't see that there was any more truth found here than before the thread was started, so I question the assertion that was the goal to begin with. That only leaves trying to create controversy for it's own sake. Please demonstrate what truth was uncovered here that was previously unknown that would negate the assertion that original post met the definition of trolling. Nyth 63 21:40, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

If you look carefully, you will see there is information there previously unpublished. Published information to date has been that between Wed 10 Jan 2001 and Fri 12 Jan there was a sort of revolt of the Nupedia academics, against having the wiki on the Nupedia domain. If you look at my 2 (?) posts on the subject, you will see there is more information, for example who were the principal mutineers. No public source to date AFAIK has stated that Jimmy took the side of the academics, supporting Nupedia against Wikipedia. This is crucial, particularly in light of what Jimmy later claimed, in various interviews. Jimmy already knows I have access to previously unpublished information. Peter Damian (talk) 20:40, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

My sifting of the old documents indicates that the first public vetting of the Wikipedia name was on "Nupedia's Wiki" (Larry Sanger, Jan. 17, 2001) [6]. The whole "sole founder" v. "co-founders" debate is a little silly since the emergence of WP was a process in which a number of people played a part. My metaphor is this: Jimmy Wales owned the lot, Larry Sanger drove the backhoe that dug the hole for the foundation, but neither one of them built the house. Clearly both of them were of massive importance in establishing basic site rules and policies, many of which remain in place today. Carrite (talk) 21:07, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

The first known public use of 'wikipedia' was on Thursday 11 January 2001 by Larry. Peter Damian (talk) 21:35, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

He owned the lot? That's a bit selfish. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:40, 27 May 2015 (UTC) Note for Brit Eng editors: that's a backhoe, not a "back up ho".

Wow that is earth shaking stuff. My whole world view has been shattered by that profound revelation. Nyth 63 01:33, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

At first, I thought Peter Damien was just gathering information for a book. But of course, he can't be - because he is well aware that per terms of service, "you must disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation" (and yes, that does include talk-page posts). 81.168.78.73 (talk) 08:42, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Please see

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Climate_change_mitigation&diff=664135308&oldid=664040912

Tim AFS (talk) 04:24, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

You made some (presumably useful) edits to Climate change mitigation, Tim AFS. Thanks, well done. What else is new? Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:34, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for noticing. I don't have time to expand that section for several days at least, but I thought posting here might increase the chances of other editors taking an interest. It's some of the most interesting technology to me, so I don't understand why more people aren't interested in it. I hope posting here at least gets more people to know about it, and at best helps attract editors to improve that section. Tim AFS (talk) 16:34, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Bayu Antasari

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Bayu Antasari. Hey, Jimbo! I think I found another case of paid advocacy editing here. Does it require a CheckUser? Please chime in there. Thanks. Gparyani (talk) 20:42, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 27 May 2015

News and notes: WMF releases quarterly reports, annual plans

In the media: Scrubbing Parliamentary biographies; Wikipedia's invisible history

Discussion report: A relic from the past that needs to be updated

Featured content: When music was confined to a ribbon of rust

Recent research: Drug articles accurate and largely complete; women "slightly overrepresented"; talking like an admin

Traffic report: Summer, summer, summertime

Technology report: MediaWiki blows up printers

RfC on consensus statement of relative safety of currently marketed GM food

See here Jytdog (talk) 01:06, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Long block issued without warning

Wrong venue for block appeals, especially since appealing here is de facto block evasion.

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

Yesterday an administrator blocked my regular IP 156.61.250.250 for six months. The block reason on the block notice was "persistent disruptive editing". Normally if an administrator feels there is a problem he will go to the user's talk page, give his thoughts, and allow the user a period to respond before blocking. In this case this did not happen. I feel the administrator's action was outside community guidelines and should be grateful if you would review it. 217.44.56.219 (talk) 10:07, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

a) They don't; and b) He won't. PS: You're now a WP:SOCK. _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 10:09, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

See [7]. 217.44.56.219 (talk) 10:47, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Vote_(X)_for_Change/Archive. Banned user Vote_(X)_for_Change (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was last discussed at Jimbotalk here: [8]. JoeSperrazza (talk) 11:58, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Add links for 156.61.250.250 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) JoeSperrazza (talk) 12:13, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

See User talk:JoeSperrazza#Cited sources described as "unsourced" comment:

Sadly, the evidence is clear

Sadly, there is no link to any evidence, and Joe's link above is to a blank page. 217.44.56.219 (talk) 12:17, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Nonetheless, I reiterate my sincere apology for all of my bad actions noted here.

Doesn't look as if Joe's behaviour has improved any. 217.44.56.219 (talk) 12:37, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Mm ... the plot thickens. The above IP was blocked by Panyd for posting on Jimbotalk. But according to Jimbo (User talk:Jimbo Wales/Archive 178#Semi-protection) it was a perfectly allowable post. Panyd is the wife of Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry whose misuse of the blocking tool made headlines in all the media a month ago. The matter is currently being dealt with by Arbcom in camera. 81.157.95.83 (talk) 14:06, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Jimbo, in all fairness, looking at the block log I see that all these blocks were imposed by the same administrator. Future Perfect at Sunrise shouldn't have imposed the second block, let alone the third and fourth. The editor was accused by another editor, using a template, of synthesis and original research. I don't think there should be a template available which allows an editor to make such claims without giving reasons. Looking at the edit itself, it was almost word for word what was in the source supplied.

The situation seems to be similar to what arose between DangerousPanda and Barney the barney barney, which led to DangerousPanda's desysopping. Incidentally, if you examine the sock puppet investigation file which Joe links to you will see that virtually all the allegations are made by one editor - the same editor who falsely templated 156.61.250.250. People only "try it on" because they think you are not going to use your review powers. 81.157.95.83 (talk) 09:52, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Jimbo is not interested in your problem. He only uses his "special powers" to further his own interests.MOMENTO (talk) 00:04, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Don't be too sure of that. If you look at his log of admin actions, not so long ago he unblocked an article talk page. Checking on the talk I found it was the result of a post on this page asking for the block to be lifted. 86.171.246.74 (talk) 10:21, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Future Perfect has no excuse. In a recent sock puppet investigation he blocked the socks but left the master for "someone more uninvolved" to deal with. Repeated blocking without justification, with no prior discussion, culminating in a six - month term, is about the biggest misuse of admin tools it is possible to imagine. 86.171.246.74 (talk) 09:21, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Could I please, for once, be responsible for my own actions? If you're blocked and then evade your block to continue editing (by, say, hopping IP addresses), you are a sock. For some bizarre reason I wasn't aware of a discussion had on this talk page in December 2014 stating that this one talk page, was an exception to this long standing rule.

If somebody had pinged me or messaged me earlier, I would have been more than happy to correct my error (and have done). I've no opinion on the original block. The ring on my finger isn't 'one to rule them all'. I am still a human being with their own agency. Please treat me as such. Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 12:02, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

You blocked 217.44.56.219 and then complain that he/she didn't contact you quietly to get unblocked. How did you expect him/her to do that? Why couldn't you just quietly unblock and leave a message on his/her talk page saying what you had done? Who is your post addressed to anyway? And since you say there is no socking, what is your motive about coming here and talking about people who sock?

In relation to myself, please do not make me responsible for other people's actions. When I sat down at this computer on Friday the IP was 81.157.95.83. By Sunday it was 86.171.246.74. Today it may be something else again.

I try to AGF, but it seems to me that your intervention is a spoiler for Jimbo when he comes to decide whether to undo what is obviously a very bad block. 86.171.246.74 (talk) 13:12, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

I was specifically addressing you, who linked to the discussion on Jimmy's talk page that clarified the issue. It's unfair to expect me to know about a discussion that happened 5 months ago, and it's very unfair to the IP user to not do everything you can to remedy the situation. I don't check Jimmy's talk page daily, so there was no way of knowing I'd made an error before I looked today.

I posted to clarify how I came to perform the action that I did (which may actually help others who also haven't read a 5 month old post to not make the same mistake), but also to please ask other users to not constantly insinuate that my actions somehow reflect on my husband. If I screw up, that's on me. Apparently I screwed up.

I'm not sure what 'spoiler for Jimbo' means. It was a block made in error. So I fixed it. That about sums it up. Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 13:59, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Administrators are supposed to be au fait with the policy they administer. You are now saying that I am supposed to be 217.44.56.219's minder. Why don't you do something useful, like examining the circumstances of the original block to see if it was justified? Jc3s5h is now rushing round removing references and changing consensus versions to his own pet versions. To get himself into this position he accused 156.61.250.250 of synthesis and original research. Let's compare his/her edit with the references supplied:

Article: Common Era. Edit date 14:13, 27 May 2015.

Removed "although scholars today generally agree that he miscalculated by a small number of years."

Source [20]:

Now the Cyrillan table would expire in A.D. 531, and Dionysius simply provided it with a new continuation covering the years 532 - 627. In front of this table he placed the last 19 year cycle of Cyrillus which was thus rescued from oblivion. But here Dionysius introduced a change of far - reaching consequences. The last cycle of Cyrillus covered the Anno Diocletiani 228 - 247 (or A.D. 512 - 531) whereas the first cycle of Dionysius referred to the Anno Domini Nostri Jesu Christi 532 - 550.

In his letter to Petronius Dionysius explained that he did not want to use his Easter table to perpetuate the memory of an impious persecutor of the Church, but preferred to count and denote the years from the incarnation of our Lord, in order to make the foundation of our hope better known and the cause of the redemption of man more conspicuous.

Source [21] - deadlink

Source [22]:

The Christian era is reckoned from the birth of Jesus and based upon the calculations of Dionysius Exiguus, who, in preparing Easter tables in A.D. 525, said: "We have chosen to note the years from the incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ." The date established was at least four years too late, however, for by this reckoning Herod the Great, under whom Jesus was born, died in 4 B.C.

Article Dionysius Exiguus:

Dionysius is best known as the inventor of the Anno Domini era, which is used to number the years of both the Gregorian calendar and the Julian calendar. He used it to identify the several Easters in his Easter table, but did not use it to date any historical event.

Added:

A complete Easter cycle consists of 532 years and begins in a leap year. Dionysius was unaware of the 532 - year repeating period, but he was aware of the cycle of 95 years over which the date of Easter will usually repeat, and he understands that it is the clash with the four - year leap year cycle which invalidates it after a long period. He listed Easter dates for the remaining seven years of the current 95 - year cycle and then named the first year of the new cycle as AD 532 instead of 248 of Diocletian and the Martyrs because he wanted to count from the Incarnation.

Source [20] page 54:

It is interesting to notice that Dionysius was honest enough to draw Bishop Petronius' attention to the fact that the new continuation of the Cyrillan 95 year period did not constitute an Easter cycle in the true sense of the word. Like the Cyrillan period it was simply a succession of 19 year periods each of which were cyclic with respect to the epact and the date of NISAN xiv, but unable to bring either the concurrentes dies or the date of Easter Sunday back to their initial values, for the simple reason that the days of the week follow a 7 year period which is not a part of period of 95 years. Thus, without mentioning it, and presumably without intending to do so, Dionysius had pointed to a weakness of his own system from which the Cursus Paschalis of Victor of Aquitaine did not suffer. It is all the more remarkable that he never mentioned the 532 year cycle at all.

Added:

However, he did not know exactly when the incarnation was (nobody knows). This is evident from his comments in Argumentum XV of his Liber de paschate sive cyclus paschalis. He gives the date of the Annunciation as Sunday, 25 March and the interval to birth as 271 days. He gives the birthday as 25 December, but 271 days from 25 March is 20 December. He then says Christ was born on Tuesday, 20 December (this Argumentum may not have been penned by Dionysius personally). The date of Sunday, 25 March implies he considered Christ to have been born in 4 BC, which is the date accepted by the majority of scholars.

Source [24]:

And right from then on until the birth of the Lord and Saviour, the day becomes shorter than the night. From March 25 and until December 25, the days number 271. And that number of days after our Lord Jesus Christ was conceived on Sunday March 25, our Lord Christ was born on Tuesday December 20 ...

And that number of days after his birth took place on a Tuesday, he suffered death on a Friday: he was born on December 25 and suffered death on March 25 ...

However, the days of the week are inconsistent with the numbering of years since the incarnation: the year numbers closest to 0 yielding a Sunday for March 25 are Julian date (-0003, March, 25) and Julian date (0003, March, 25) as can be seen easily from the table above and also from [Argumentum 4]. (We use the astronomical numbering of years .., -0001, 000, +0001, .. for which the formula of [Argumentum 4] is always valid).

If you want to be fair to the IP user you can lift the block yourself. You have second mover advantage. 86.171.246.74 (talk) 17:25, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

I strongly counsel against doing anything for second mover advantage. If an admin action is correct you should be able to convince your peers that it is correct. Using admin access to perform actions known or suspected to be contentious could be grounds to lose that access. Jehochman ^Talk 17:39, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Having read the evidence, what makes you think the unblock would be contentious? 86.145.50.7 (talk) 17:44, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Silence. The following header just about sums it up:

"This Kinda reminds me of 1984..."

Quoting from Jehochman's RfA:

I tracked down the unblocking admin, User:Eagle 101, on IRC and he patiently explained that blocking users isn't our goal and that it's much more satisfying to help them adjust. The user has turned into a productive editor. Getting angry with people doesn't help much. I've learned the importance of trying to be constructive and find common ground whenever possible. Even when requesting a siteban for a long term disruptive editor, I tried to be polite to them and explain what they would need to do to get themselves unbanned. Blocking and banning aren't as good as convincing an editor to follow site standards ... Our goal is never to block somebody. No, we want them to stick around and make valuable contributions.

86.163.126.17 (talk) 18:30, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

I more or less missed all the drama but since a comment I made a while back has come into play here, I just wanted to weigh in and say that while I do request that we be more tolerant than normal on this page, particularly when people are bringing complaints to me, I also request that trolls not be given an infinite soapbox for harassment of me or others. This means judgment calls will have to be made sometimes, and I think there's no reason to have any drama about them. If you think a block was premature for this page, then revert it. If you think someone really really needs a block, then block them. That's all. No need for good people to get too worried about any of it.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 18:47, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, Jimbo. Can I just summarise what went on here? Doug Weller edited Common Era at 12:16 on 25 May. 156.61.250.250 edited it at 08:38, 08:40, 08:42, 08:57, and 09:53 the following morning. At 09:55 Jc3s5h reverted under edit summary No consensus among scholars about why Dionysius Exigius chose the year he did. In that case he should have made that clear in the article instead of reinstating the words "although scholars today generally agree that he miscalculated by a small number of years", which is unsourced original research and is in any event untrue.

At 10:57 156.61.250.250 removed the incorrect statement and followed up with minor edits at 11:06 and 11:08. At 11:16 Jc3s5h added the incorrect statement a second time and at 15:01 156.61.250.250 removed it a second time. At 15:28 Doug Weller reversed 156.61.250.250's correction, which he described as having been made in "good faith", thus adding the incorrect information a third time. At 11:23 on 27 May 156.61.250.250 removed the incorrect statement a third time and emphasised in the edit summary that it was being removed because it was wrong. Minor edits followed at 11:25, 11:30, 11:32, 11:33 and 11:54.

Having been notified that the information was wrong one would have thought that Jc3s5h would have discussed on the talk page before attempting to re - add it, but instead added it a fourth time at 13:56, removing 156.61.250.250's referenced edit, including the source provided, which he claimed was original research. Instead of claiming the material was original research and removing it together with its accompanying reference the editor should have opened a discussion on the talk page explaining why he considered a referenced edit was original research. At 14:13 156.61.250.250 pointed out this error and removed the incorrect information a fourth time.

At 15:00 Doug Weller removed the sourced information, including the source, repeating the claim that it was original research. Once again, he should not have removed a source without discussing on the talk page what he proposed to do. At 15:01 Doug Weller added a reference and at 12:04 on 28 May 156.61.250.250 added a further reference. Then at 12:11 Jc3s5h reverted saying there was no consensus to include the material. So at that point we had the "BR" of the "BRD" cycle, and the next step, if any further amendments were to be made, would have been to open a discussion on the talk page. But no discussion was opened, because everyone was satisfied with the wording as it then stood.

At 12:25, Doug Weller made a completely unnecessary post to Future Perfect's talk page: User talk:Future Perfect at Sunrise#What do you think. Future Perfect did not respond but issued a block at 14:55. If you need any further information before coming to your decision please let me know.

@Future Perfect at Sunrise: I'm going to try and bring Future Perfect into the discussion by following the instructions which he has printed at the top of his talk page. 86.163.126.17 (talk) 16:16, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

And I have blocked this latest IP (86.163.126.17) for block evasion. This IP user (normally on stative IP 156.61.250.250 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)) knows perfectly well what he was blocked for (continuation of the same behaviour for which he was blocked in the same way, on the same IP, several times previously). If he wants to make an unblock request, he can do so in the normal way, from his permanent IP, like everybody else. I won't be available for any further discussion on this page and would ask everybody to revert further block-evading postings if they should occur. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:36, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

This Kinda reminds me of 1984...

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jimmy_Wales&diff=next&oldid=26709690

Sanger became an unperson due to thoughtcrime!--216.186.248.166 (talk) 20:40, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Your point about this 2005 edit would be far more persuasive except for the fact, inconvenient for you, that Larry Sanger is mentioned at least seven times in that version of the article. This kinda reminds me of a cheap shot. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:17, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

The funny thing about this diff, of course, is that it is a clear violation of the so-called Bright Line Rule... Not a big rip, but it makes me smile... Carrite (talk) 02:40, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

What makes me not smile is that you just faulted Jimbo for failing to jump in his time machine, go back to 2005, and tell himself to follow a rule that he wrote in 2012. See User:Jimbo Wales/Paid Advocacy FAQ. --Guy Macon (talk) 04:40, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

I'm not faulting him for not following a then non-existent non-rule that is still a non-existent non-rule. Indeed, I'm smiling because when push came to shove he acted exactly like tens of thousands of other BLP subjects have acted, act, and will act in the same situation. Ya read your own page and fix what is wrong or what you disagree with... It is human nature. Carrite (talk) 06:29, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

It was also allowed and perfectly normal. Look at our 2005 COI policy. and the page that really addressed editing your own BLP (Wikipedia:Best practices for editors with close associations) wasn't written until 2009, and those early versions allowed you to edit your own BLP[9] You can't blame people for not following rules before the rules exist. --Guy Macon (talk) 07:49, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

To repeat: there still is no rule. Carrite (talk) 01:28, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Anyway the link refers to the Wikimedia Foundation not WP (which was two years previously). Yo! _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 11:50, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

I think everyone needs to read that book again. Gamaliel (talk) 13:54, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

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.

←

→

RfA is broken

Yet another trolling thread by block-evading IP

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

Jimbo, two good faith questions at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/NeilN have been removed, the editor who submitted them has been blocked and the voting and discussion pages have been locked. These actions were performed by Berean Hunter, whose edit summary was IPs aren't people. At a time when so many bad things are happening (paid editors, huge sock farms, editors being globally locked etc.) this strikes at the integrity of the RfA process (designed to weed out the "bad apples" as one contributor to the RfA put it) and shows a cynical disregard for the open and democratic processes which Wikipedia needs if it is to continue to secure the funding and support of the public. It is also disrespectful of the hard work that ordinary members of the public put in to keep Wikipedia up - to - date and informative. Can you step in to halt this abuse, bearing in mind that according to Berean Hunter's user page this RfA has only seven hours to run? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.160.51.33 (talk) 13:19, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

An editor asked Neil if he was going to answer the twelfth question and his reply was

I obviously won't be answering that question and have asked that page to be deleted.

So now candidates get to decide what questions are put up for them to answer. Meanwhile, administrators remove oppose comments and lock the voting and discussion pages. I've examined the oppose comment that Berean Hunter protected against and find comments by Neil that the opposer linked to to be disquieting.

Hunting animals, hunting people. Yes, that's completely the same.

The response to that was

If you can't tell the difference between hunting people (genocide) and hunting animals (collecting food) there's no hope for you.

There is intimidation coupled with ignorance of WP rules:

Currently you have four pointy edits to the caption in less than three days. That is edit warring.

The "pointy edits" added a sourced statement by an art expert that a picture was not Muhammad forbidding nasi, as claimed by Neil.

The threats continue:

It was pointy disruption. Continue and I'll bring the matter to WP:ANI.

An editor comments on Neil's uncollegial editing:

Everyone who has contributed to this discussion is agreed that the current caption is non - neutral and needs to change. So instead of slagging off other editors why don't you do something constructive - i.e. agree that the proposed wording is satisfactory or (if that is the case) suggest a wording which you think is better?

The personal attacks continue unabated:

More deliberate misrepresentations from you. Do you ever get tired of this?

I've already asked this RFC to be closed, as I expected just more insults and intimidation from you.

He derails discussion with irrelevant issues:

It is verifiable that Francoise Hollande visited an orphanage yesterday. Doesn't mean it belongs in his biography.

Francoise - is he a transvestite?

He twists facts to win a point

How about WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT? "The section is called "Prohibiting Nasi". We have an image of Muhammad prohibiting Nasi".

Note that not one art expert who has investigated the matter believes Neil's claim. He twists the facts again:

Misdescribed in your opinion. Not according to sources posted above.

Again, your opinion, not backed by any sources.

He misrepresents the sources:

Source 3: Different interpretation.

Then the personal attacks start up again:

LOL. This shows how desperately you're grasping at straws. Content on other language Wikipedia's has no bearing here and trying to smear editors (and me) for trying to make sure sexually - related articles meet our content guidelines. This is what you've sunk to?

The twisting of facts continues:

It's obvious you didn't like the way the RFC was closed so you've decided to mess around with the caption which currently consists of a sourced attributed interpretation of the image relevant to the section.

An expert editor tries to set Neil right:

The RFC closing statement didn't deal with the NPOV concerns, hence shouldn't be relevant to this discussion. Also, Hillenbrand's "sectarian" conclusion is notable, and usually the sole reason why reliable sources refer to his paper and this image set. It is disingenuous to ignore this conclusion and pass the image/MS as neutral.

NeilN, do you have a source refuting Hillenbrand's conclusion about this Ms. and its illustrator? If not, then why should we treat this primary source as neutral even though reliable sources recognize as "sectarian" and "polemical"?

Neil seems to have a track record for this behaviour:

You edit like NeilN, who is notorious for something.

The expert editor quoted above tries again:

The RFC closing statement didn't deal adequately or explicitly with the two issues raised, thus not sure why it should stifle this discussion. The two issues are 1) including material that reliable sources consider as having a sectarian/polemical function in this article, and 2) ignoring reliable sources that do not link this image to intercalation. I've been reading this discussion on and off and I haven't seen a compelling answer to these two points.

Actually, the image is being used here in the same context that reliable sources have described as sectarian (i.e., illustrating a neutral text about calendars). So your claim that it's "being used in non - sectarian/non - polemical ways" is nonsensical. Your 2nd point shows that you have very little experience in content editing. We are not supposed to give preference for one source and ignore others. In this case reliable sources differ on caption and pertinence. This article must reflect these differences to meet WP:NPOV.

No wonder Neil was so desperate to get the material removed from his RfA. The administrators who abetted him are just taking the mick. I want to get a debate started here about what we can do about this. First, if an oppose comment is revdeletable, revdelete it. If it's not, leave it. Simple. There's been comment on ANI about administrators abusing the revdeletion tool. We can cross that bridge when we come to it.

Secondly, there is no need ever to semiprotect. Revdeletion and RBI work just fine. If an administrator does protect, two things should happen automatically:

(1) the page(s) get(s) unprotected and

(2) the discussion will run on for seven days after the unprotection.

If anyone removes an oppose comment without revdeleting or asking for revdeletion and the comment remains in history the comment is restored and the RfA runs for seven days after the restoration.

I'm hoping to get consensus here for the unprotection of Neil's RfA page and a continuation of discussion for one week - also a temporary desysop if he doesn't agree not to use his tools until the matter is resolved. 86.183.18.194 (talk) 14:18, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Ridiculous. Candidates are free to decline to answer any questions they want. If an established editor had thought your question was useful and repeated it, no one would have removed it. That no one did, including the editors already opposing the candidate speaks volumes. Finally You are trying to get us to re-open the most heavily supported RFA since June 2013 over this nonsense. Monty ₈₄₅ 16:41, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

As Monty845 says, beyond the first three, mandatory questions, RfA candidates can choose which questions they want to respond to. If you are seeking changes to the RfA process, go to Wikipedia:Village pump (policy) and seek a consensus there rather than on a user talk page. You are asking for changes that require the community's input and not just the opinions of editors who have this page on their Watchlists. If you are seeking a page's protection to be lifted, file a request at WP:RPP. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:07, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

To illuminate, these were the IP's two "good faith" questions:

It's rather unfortunate that in addition to your RFA, the administrators, in what is a sheer act of cowardice, have protected even the talk page. A blatant effort to disregard comments by anonymous detractors. Here's the eleventh question that you must answer:

It is necessary to have bare minimum mathematical abilities in order to efficiently discharge administrative duties. Mathematics is required to correctly calculate the probability of users' causing disruption, based on their other edits as well any further information that might be available, without taking the time and energy to really go through all the edits. Your question is here: The velocity of a particle moving in a straight line as a function of time is given as

v=10+5t+2t^{2}

. Find the acceleration of the particle at time t = 2 s. Also, find the position of the particle at time t = 3 s if the at t = 0 s, its position is x = 20 m.

103.6.159.179 (talk) 15:31, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Another question, a much simpler one:

Find the definite integral of

cosec^{2}xcotxtanx

with respect to x within the limits 0 and 2x. 103.6.159.179 (talk) 15:37, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Also note that both the questions must be answered before your RfA gets over, that is, in about 5 hours. You have enough time. 103.6.159.179 (talk) 15:39, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

--NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:18, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

I don't think the questions Neil cites ever found their way onto the RfA. I was talking about the IP who wanted an explanation of why, in answering Question 3, he omitted reference to a lengthy conflict he had been involved in weeks earlier. Why was it necessary to remove that question? As Neil is watching perhaps he will explain (and answer the question at the same time). 86.149.14.158 (talk) 17:24, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Given that all the IP's are you, and you are block evading, [10] I don't think so. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:27, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

What drivel. The IP geolocates to Bangalore. Have I a magic carpet? 86.149.14.158 (talk) 17:33, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Short version For the curious but busy, here are the comments and questions posed/referred to by the IP: [11],[12], [13], [14]. Also this (admin only), which may be the same person or another of Neil's "fans". Abecedare (talk) 17:45, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the maths practice guys, very useful for the exam tomorrow - 1)13ms^-2 and 2)90.5m. haven't started on the last, but at least something productive has come from here..... Mdann52 (talk) 18:03, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

A new meaning to the phrase "Going Dutch"

Barek says that an editor who was blocked for alleged edit warring has a long history of vandalism. That is obviously untrue. Future Perfect alleges that threads which were started by different IPs were all started by the same person. Again obviously untrue. The editor who wrote this [15], and who was quickly blocked for five years, appears to be Dutch. That's not me.

He made the same accusations against other editors and quickly hatted the thread (the one immediately above this) when he was proved wrong.

The originally blocked editor was blocked at 15:33 on 2 March for 31 hours. The reason given was edit - warring on several articles. S/he added a line to Leap year which stated

The mean tropical year, (which is the same thing as the interval between mean vernal equinoxes), is virtually fixed.

At 13:20 Karl Palmen reverted under the edit summary Undo revision 649529978 (untrue statement). However, the article Tropical year quotes the official definition as follows:

The natural basis for computing passing tropical years is the mean longitude of the Sun reckoned from the precessionally moving equinox (the dynamical equinox or equinox of date). Whenever the longitude reaches a multiple of 360 degrees the mean Sun crosses the vernal equinox and a new tropical begins.

The reverted text was a succinct and accurate summary of that definition.

The editor did make four reverts to Gregorian calendar, but no three of them were within 24 hours.

The second block was at 11:01 on 4 March, the reason being continued disruptive editing immediately after last block. Future Perfect has said that this means edit warring. In the interval between blocks there was an edit to Leap year which was in line with the official definition quoted above. There was also an edit restoring material to Gregorian calendar, but after counsel from Joe Sperrazza no further effort was made to restore it.

The difference in attitude is obvious. Joe enters into discussion with the editor. Future Perfect, knowing that he is involved, could have referred to the edit warring notice board or discussed, which any other administrator would have done, but again blocks without warning.

The third block was at 14:32 on 10 March, the reason given being persistent edit warring. In the interval between blocks there was one revert of Jc3s5h on Gregorian calendar. The material which the editor added (and which Jc3s5h objected to) was added to another article by Jc3s5h later. During the same period the editor added the same material to Tropical year and was reverted twice by Jc3s5h. But as stated above, this is the material which Jc3s5h later added to an article, and the article to which he added it was Tropical year.

Any lingering assumption of good faith towards Future Perfect would have been dissipated by this third block, which as can be seen followed nothing remotely resembling edit warring, just the normal back and forth between editors which is replicated 200,000 times a day. 151.224.136.14 (talk) 09:53, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Request to protect Knowledge instead religious obscurantism

Hello Jimbo! I know that English Wikipedia has a little relation to other Wikipedias (responsibility), but I ask your help (other method stop anarchy from the side of Russians administrators does not exist in the nature). They block users under any stupid reason (to be free of punishment for violations against rules of Wikipedia). Several of them. Main violator:User talk:OneLittleMouse. He protects any article which is related to the Russian Orthodox Church (when info - terrible murders of this church hundreds years ago). They burned live people like the Catholic chuch if not more. I ask stop Russian vandals with flag of administrator. This can be separate case (when you defend something in other jurisdiction). Best option - block Onelittlemouse forever (in any Wikipedia). He has no any relation to Knowledge (only block people on illegal grounds). He far (he brave only by this reason). Removal of whole sections related to crimes of the Orthodox church - also action of Onelittlemouse. Criminal Christianity governs in Russian Wikipedia instead Knowledge. Last vandalism was several minutes ago (warning for Mouse). Without help of English Wikipedia - nothing will be changed. Thank you! https://translate.google.ru/ 95.29.92.118 (talk) 12:24, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Content of this page - is copy of the deleted article in Russian Wikipedia (terrible crimes of the Russian Orthodox Church against people and science). Material contains a large number of references from different independent sources. You need use bot translator to read this and use, if will be need. Request take some action vs Russian violators from Russian Wikipedia (also is actual). - 95.29.131.6 (talk) 00:21, 3 June 2015 (UTC).

- The article was deleted after AFD ru:Википедия:К_удалению/30_августа_2009#Борьба с инакомыслием в истории Русской православной церкви, there a lot of strong arguments for and against deletion were voiced. It was dealt in an ArbCom case on Russian wiki ru:Арбитраж:О_трактовке_ВП:БС. The main arguments towards keeping the article is that it is actually interesting, well-referenced collection of facts, some of each seems to be intentionally obscured by clerical circles. Their opponents argue that it is a synthesis of hardly related facts (e.g. corruption of his position by an archbishop of 11th century and criticism of Harry Potter books by some freaks calling themselves Orthodox Christians, etc.) At the moment I would trust the own processes of Russian wikipedia to find a correct solution. Alex Bakharev (talk) 00:54, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
  - Sorry, did not realized that the Russian arbcom discussion is of 2009, not current. After some thinking I have to admit that the 2009 of deleting the article seems to be within our policies. If a similar article would be on English wiki I would vote for deletion as a violation of WP:SYNTH and WP:NPOV. Alex Bakharev (talk) 01:25, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

The deal in other. I have no any relation to this article. I said about materials which can be extracted from this article. Russian vandals struggles against super references in other articles. Main vandal (Mouse) blocks any trying write explanation and any edit in other articles, when are used good references. I not ask restore this article. I ask provide possibility use several good references in other related articles. Mouse must be stoped - including (defense of the ROC against Knowledge - his deal). 95.29.74.52 (talk) 13:27, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

And may suppose that Hitler very good knew all of this. - 95.29.74.52 (talk) 13:38, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Aaaaand we have a winner. Godwin's Law invoked, we can all go home now. Guy (Help!) 15:15, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

You are wrong in some part. Article gives the info. Hitler made this comparison long time ago (says the historical science). I only showed that a religion can not be without violence (the ROC - not separate case). Texts there - call to action also. Inquisition - a tool for any Christianity. Bible permits murders for distribution of Christianity around the world (already made many years ago). 95.29.74.52 (talk) 17:14, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Mouse again implements vandalism against topics and not only: https://ru.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=%D0%9E%D0%B1%D1%81%D1%83%D0%B6%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BD%D0%B8%D0%B5:%D0%9A%D1%80%D0%B5%D1%89%D0%B5%D0%BD%D0%B8%D0%B5_%D0%A0%D1%83%D1%81%D0%B8&action=history (other users asked me create new topic, but Mouse is vandal again: vs NEW5128) - 95.29.131.40 (talk) 12:05, 8 June 2015 (UTC).

Vandal blocked my new account: https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%A1%D0%BB%D1%83%D0%B6%D0%B5%D0%B1%D0%BD%D0%B0%D1%8F:%D0%92%D0%BA%D0%BB%D0%B0%D0%B4/ROND1225 Jimbo and other administrators, destroy Mouse! ROND1225 (talk) 12:16, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Vandal Mouse blocks the whole range of IPs (who belongs to thousands of users): https://ru.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=%D0%A1%D0%BB%D1%83%D0%B6%D0%B5%D0%B1%D0%BD%D0%B0%D1%8F:%D0%92%D1%85%D0%BE%D0%B4&returnto=%D0%9E%D0%B1%D1%81%D1%83%D0%B6%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BD%D0%B8%D0%B5+%D1%83%D1%87%D0%B0%D1%81%D1%82%D0%BD%D0%B8%D0%BA%D0%B0%3ADraa+kul&returntoquery=action%3Dedit%26undoafter%3D71287567%26undo%3D71288901&type=signup Jimbo, I ask you destroy this stupid and little mouse (he is against Wikipedia and a large number of any users). Now damage is directed not only vs me (softly speaking). - 95.29.143.183 (talk) 14:29, 8 June 2015 (UTC).

Mouse got the new warning: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:OneLittleMouse#Welcome_to_Jimbo_Wales :

"Mouse, you watches this page (even fool understands this). Welcome to Jimbo Wales to explain him reasons of your vandalism! You have legal right to explane. But if you does not wish explain - you are violator on highest level and you have great chance be punished via some method. If God does not exist in the nature, you will be punished (God keeps silent because he does not exist). 95.29.143.183 (talk) 14:38, 8 June 2015 (UTC)" 95.29.143.183 (talk) 14:43, 8 June 2015 (UTC).

But the mouse struggles not for the good of the bloody religion (for own bad aims). - 95.29.143.183 (talk) 15:03, 8 June 2015 (UTC).

Here is located the clear understanding: Censorship in the Russian Empire (why info from Soviet sources on the religion issues, can be very authoritative also). And in many times more than modern information: Russia currently supports the ROC as never earlier (censorship on highest level - including). When Lenin got power, all Russian archives became opened. The ROC was related to the Russian monarchy - very and very strongly. Almost all time till 1917 year. Any modern bishop which deny crimes of the ROC - is a lier. Not only bishop (state historians also: reason - above). This article of Russian Wikipedia - exists, and contains info about crimes from the side of the ROC and the Russian monarchy in the same time (almost any bloody legal act of the Russian monarchy was signed by representatives of the ROC). And by the evil will of the ROC - almost all cases (initiative). Or the ROC acted independently, with help of fire vs live people. All of this may be called: religious persecution in Russia. But this Russian article contains a little info (by known reasons, which related to vandals from Russian Wikipedia or to the modern ROC). This section contains only 1% of truth (executions via the ROC). https://translate.google.ru - 95.29.143.183 (talk) 16:43, 8 June 2015 (UTC).

Fresh vandalism from OneLittleMouse: https://ru.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=%D0%A0%D1%83%D1%81%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%B0%D1%8F_%D0%BF%D1%80%D0%B0%D0%B2%D0%BE%D1%81%D0%BB%D0%B0%D0%B2%D0%BD%D0%B0%D1%8F_%D1%86%D0%B5%D1%80%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%B2%D1%8C&action=history (and he saw the notice to explain his violations). He ignores even this rule: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Flagged_revisions/Sighted_versions#User_rights He is against this user:AlexTref871, who approved the new edit. This user is right, because (including) Mouse is violator on very huge level, as you saw many times. I ask destroy Mouse. Already tired ask (I gave you a large number arguments: Mouse = violations and nothing more). Mouse collects any edits to keep status of administrator as may longer (need make many edits or admin can lose the status). 37.144.112.194 (talk) 23:54, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

New edit is here: https://ru.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=%D0%9F%D1%80%D0%B0%D0%B2%D0%BE%D1%81%D0%BB%D0%B0%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B5&action=history ROBIN6129 (talk) 00:12, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

37.144.109.50, when you say things like Mr Wales is atheist, people are going to ask if the rest of your argument is nonsense. Jimmy married at Wesley's Chapel in City Road, Finsbury, and the Prime Minister was among the guests. I know the Russian Orthodox Church has some unusual ideas - I don't know the exact details but priests say that a huge mirror which it is planned to erect in Moscow is evil.

I don't know who made this comment or alot about Jimmy Wales, but his page seems to indicate he is an atheist. Jimmy Wales#Personal life. Dustin (talk) 17:03, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

I don't think they are worse than other religions, and much better than some. I don't think they have ever engaged in genocide, as the Turks did against Oriental Christians in 1915. 151.224.136.14 (talk) 09:53, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Wiki-videos

Jimmy Wales,

I have a mind of an entrepreneur, and a sense of future market trends. I writing to see when or if Wikipedia will have links to video learning content. Are their barriers to entry in using You-Tube for this? Is the infrastructure too to large for Wikipedia to handle?

-John Mullaney [email redacted] Minneapolis MN 55401 67.6.45.215 (talk) 01:06, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Thoughts: It is an interesting concept. Web cams are now ubiquitous and open source video editing software available. It would just require a site that can log individual edits just as on WP. Just as text can be broken up into sections, so it must be possible to subdivide the whole video file, so that one only need to edit a small part. I dare say that Microsoft, Oracle, Darl McBride et.al., already have patents on this. --Aspro (talk) 11:52, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Wikimedia Commons has videos at https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Videos (commons:Category:Videos).

—Wavelength (talk) 14:01, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Some Wikipedia articles (Category:Articles containing video clips) contain video clips.

—Wavelength (talk) 19:00, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

You can see 16 videos about Wikimania 2014 at Wikimania 2014 - YouTube.

—Wavelength (talk) 01:24, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:WikiProject Images and Media.—Wavelength (talk) 19:58, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Spelling of pharaoh/pharoah

With the recent Triple Crown win of race horse American Pharoah, the unusual name spelling as "pharoah" has re-kindled issues of the 165-year spelling in painting title "Pharoah's Horses" (1848) by John Frederick Herring (see 1849 print in British Museum catalogue link: BritM284). Again, the Internet, outside Wikipedia, is difficult to search for history of archaic or variant spellings, so this is another subject WP could/should handle, possibly as a footnote in the article "Pharaoh" with mention of the alternate form as "rarely 'pharoah' " or such. The popular cry of 'pharoah' as being misspelled is too simplistic to the 200-year spelling issue. Things to ponder. -Wikid77 (talk) 22:32, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Note to self: create article on Paul Pharoah. Guy (Help!) 22:57, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

May 2015 participation numbers

The Wikipedia stats for May 2015 are now up in the usual place. The very active editor numbers (100+ edits) for May 2015 are good but not great, erasing some but not all of the decline we experienced in 2014. (LINK). At English-WP the May count of core volunteers sits at 3225 — up 5.7% from the same month last year. For all projects combined the figure is 10,064 — up an even less robust 3.87% agains the abysmal May 2014 figures, although the increase was general with only Farsi, Indonesian, and Romanian showing significant declines over previous-year numbers among the active non-English encyclopedias. Armenian-WP nearly doubled to 61 very active editors. About 32% of very active editors do their thing on English-Wikipedia, for what it's worth.

With respect to another key metric, new articles per day, that's not so pretty — down to 779 on En-WP, a decline of 1.8% from 2014's already weak figure. (LINK). At a glance it looks like a catastrophe for the same stat for all Wikis combined, with a drop of a massive 27.6% showing against last year. Fortunately, that seems to be a simple matter of fewer machine translations, with much of the drop attributable to falls in the inflated 2014 counts for Vietnamese, Waray-Waray, and Serbo-Croatian. Still, May 2015 was not as good a month for Wikipedia as was April. —Tim Davenport //// Carrite (talk) 13:51, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for this analysis! What are the brightest spots, other than Armenian? My view is that the situation with English Wikipedia and all the other "large" Wikipedias is different from that of smaller languages, with the causes of entry and departure from the community likely to be very different.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 15:20, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

The Spanish-language (eswiki) levels seem steady, but it is interesting how the enwiki monthly levels for 100+ edits are all 3-6% higher in Jan-May 2015 than in 2014, as if the slow yearly decline in editors has finally reversed to a 5% rise. However, I wonder if the U.S. presidential candidates announcing since January 2015 have attracted busy editors to political pages. -Wikid77 (talk) 22:12, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Wikid77, I think the core volunteer numbers have been at a nice plateau for the past 4 or even 5 years — very steady, very regular — with the exception of 2014, which was a bad year. I'm not entirely sure why 2014 was bad outside of the MediaViewer controversy, which explained a small part of it. It was as if the Wikipedia "economy" had a recession in 2014 and has almost entirely, but not quite, snapped back from that. This is where surveying needs to have happened: if we knew who these volunteers who left were in terms of user names and email addresses, there could be an exit interview process that might prove illuminating. There is really no excuse for WMF not to have its top 20,000 current contributors listed in a big database — hell, I have a 14,000 name customer list for a small shoe store! Part of the problem is that WMF hasn't actually seen what we all anecdotally know: that there is a stable core community (most of whom do not partake of Jimbotalk, Village Pump, ANI, etc. but who work in silence). Carrite (talk) 17:58, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

I took a break in mid-2014 because the Wikipedia environment seemed so contentious, I mean more so than I was used to in 2013. Since coming back in the fall, I've looked at other editors I used to collaborate with and see that quite a lot of them retired around summer 2014. Some have returned, some didn't. I haven't gone into arbitration or noticeboard archives to see if my perception accurately reflects what was going on at that time in 2014. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:11, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

That's pretty interesting. I think that something like that did happen on a fairly broad scale, but we can only guess without actual surveying... Carrite (talk) 17:30, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

The one I watch most closely is the German (De-WP), which seems to be the 2nd most vigorous language-wiki after English and which is evolving in parallel. They were, of course, the wiki that went toe-to-toe with WMF over implementation of the first iteration of MediaViewer, resulting in the creation and use of Super Protection, Pete Forsyth's petition, and a really unhappy 2014 in which about 10% of De-WP's core volunteers seem to have pulled up stakes and left. It looks to me that the loss is permanent — about 100 out of 1,000 are gone, speaking in very round numbers. That's a little surprising in the wake of staff changes at WMF and MediaViewer being more or less made into a fully alpha product in the interim. I think there might be an important lesson there for WMF engineering; I don't know if they hear it.

During the recent Trustees campaign (in which I was a candidate) I was pushed to think about things that I hadn't before. Such as: We at En-WP have a certain arrogance and sense that the sun revolves around us. In actual fact, En-WP has just about exactly 1/3 of the core volunteers and 2/3 are doing their thing elsewhere. Being parochial about En-WP now seems like a very shallow perspective. Also: there are essentially two types of language-wikis — those with a critical mass of volunteers and a healthy, functioning community and those that are still in the very early stages of development, akin to En-WP in 2001. There needs to be a better way to follow what is going on at the functioning WPs in terms of their evolving site culture and problems. It is hard to keep tabs around the planet without language skills given the primitive nature of automatic machine translation outside of a few languages, but that strikes me a a big challenge that needs to be met. I don't know if there are 30 or 40 fully functioning communities today — probably something in that range. I might take a spin around the neighborhood one of these days... —Tim Davenport /// Carrite (talk) 17:26, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

It occurs to me that this problem is very similar to that which faced the early 20th Century American radical movement, which had roughly 14 different language groups (the American working class being an immigrant population: German, Yiddish, Russian, Finnish, Latvian, Polish, Ukrainian, Lithuanian, Swedish, Slovenian, Croatian, etc.) There was a similar communication issue, an inability to systematically translate literature, follow the developing political situation in each federation, coordinate speaking tours, etc. The way the Socialist Party of America solved the problem was through the creation of a position called "Translator-Secretary" — elected by the federations themselves, given an office in Chicago at national HQ, and paid a salary with dues paid in by the federations. These Translator-Secretaries were given the task of translation of English National Office material into the language in question for publication in the language press and acting as intermediaries to explain political developments in each of the semi-autonomous language federations.

Now, obviously, that's a really expensive solution to the problem, but it might be that something like Signpost could be created with a global focus, with regular, elected correspondents issuing quarterly reports, staggered out so they don't all publish the same day... That would be much better than the current information situation, which is pretty much: nothing. Carrite (talk) 17:42, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Gizmodo piece

I see Gizmodo has run a story about you. [16] I'm curious what you think about it, particularly the stuff about Bomis that is discussed a great deal (e.g. "With the titty-driven funding from Bomis pulled, Wales established Wikipedia as a charity enterprise back in 2003...") Everymorning talk 00:06, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

"Gizmodo (/ɡɪzˈmoʊdoʊ/ giz-moh-doh) is a design and technology blog. It is part of the Gawker Media network" is all you need to know. In other words, *yawn*.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 13:09, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

You win 1 (one) Internet. Guy (Help!) 21:13, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Ignorant people write erroneous information that I can't correct

Pretty rubbish encyclopedia that says the Jewish festival of Passover or Pesach/Pesah is a one day gig when, in actual fact it lasts for seven or eight days without eating leavened bread. This is on the Swedish WP where white Christian males tend to write everything according how to they see the world. Sabaths and festivals may go from sunset to sunset in the Christian church, but in Judaism the conclusion of the sabbath or festival, marked by the havdalah ceremony, is extended to nightfall when three stars are visible in the sky. But the Swedish article on Passover gives the Christian practice for Christian sabbaths. This has been picked up by Swedish radio and the errors persist and are disseminated.

I would correct this myself if it wasn't for the fact that I am blocked on Swedish WP. RPSM (talk) 12:11, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Well, the Swedish editors tend to be very restrictive to edits, but the Swedish article on Passover ("sv:Pesach") does cover the 7-day form, although the introductory wording has given the impression of a one-day event, as with:

"Det firas samma dag varje år i den judiska kalendern, nämligen den 15:e Nisan (se Andra Mosebok 12:6)." [translation: "It is celebrated on the same day every year in the Jewish calendar, namely the 15th of Nisan (see Exodus 12:6)"].

Perhaps someone could swap the phrase, "It is celebrated" to become, "The one-week festival begins" as translated into Swedish. Overall, the English WP also has many problems of misleading phrases, plus non-comprehensive wording, which can severely slant the perceptions of readers. Think of the entire Wikipedia as a "work-in-progress" for decades and centuries to come, and focus edits in various other-language Wikipedias where there might not be as much resistance to change. -Wikid77 (talk) 15:45, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Thank you

I was so impressed that the G7 endorsed fossil fuel phase out but confused months with years. I hope our countries can give yours universal health care, free public education through college, and plastic structural fiberglass lumber in return. What do you want to fix next? Tim AFS (talk) 13:51, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Global agenda

My motivation for starting Wikipedia:Global agenda came from comments in the third paragraph posted by you on this talk page at 18:58, 4 May 2015 (UTC). That paragraph is reproduced below.

I have always said that we are more than just a highly technical effort - Wikipedia is a moral statement about the kind of world we would like to live in. I see room for action in this kind of situation, but rather than having this conversation at the moment of emergency, where all the usual complexities tend to weigh against action of any kind, I'd rather see us have a more focussed and serious conversation about how we ought to use our invisible and unused power to put things on the global agenda in a major way.

Here are links to two archived discussions related to Wikipedia:Global agenda.

User talk:Jimbo Wales/Archive 188#Disaster relief donations (April and May 2015)
User talk:Jimbo Wales/Archive 188#Wikipedia:Global agenda (May 2015)

Participation has dwindled at Wikipedia:Global agenda and its talk page, and at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Global agenda. Wikipedia:Meta has been suggested as a more appropriate place for such a discussion, but I (and probably many others) do not have a global watchlist. Therefore, I suggest that this talk page be used for "a more focussed and serious conversation". As in the case of Wikipedia:Global agenda, I have no particular contribution to make (except to say that I do not support political advocacy). Therefore, after this introduction, I wish to step aside and let other editors discuss "how we ought to use our invisible and unused power to put things on the global agenda in a major way".
—Wavelength (talk) 16:09, 12 June 2015 (UTC) and 16:32, 12 June 2015 (UTC) and 17:36, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

We shouldn't use it. And Jimbo should not have said it. I'm not even sure how many people would agree with his hippy-ish characterisation of Wikipedia. Certainly, it isn't why most people use it or contribute to it. - Sitush (talk) 17:59, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Huh? Why not? Wikipedians, in my experience, have a much less parochial outlook than J. Random. Internetuser. Reaching across borders is entirely in keeping with the Wikipedia ethos. Consider the issue of information freedom across the Great Firewall, for example, or attempts to suppress information about political events in Russia. Wikipedia is a small-l liberal enterprise. Guy (Help!) 21:10, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Really? So explain why the history of well over 20 per cent of the world's population is massively distorted simply because we have to insist on the provisions of WP:V. That is an inherent bias embedded in our ethos. It is one that, whilst we cannot reasonably overcome it without becoming a free-for-all playground, we go out of our way to insist upon (me included). We suppress widely-accepted knowledge many thousands of times every day. - Sitush (talk) 04:29, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Systemic bias. WP:V is an essential counterbalance to "anyone can edit". In my experience most of the examples of "widely accepted knowledge" that we "suppress" turn out to be beliefs that are contradicted by empirically established fact. Admittedly this will be skewed by my interest in pseudoscientific and pseudomedical topics. Guy (Help!) 11:02, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

You aren't kidding to say it is skewed. Ever heard of oral history? I'm well aware that this is systemic bias but that wasn't my point. Your "attempts to suppress information about political events in Russia" doesn't hold a candle to our inherent suppression of information. You want to expand the WMF/WP mission then go create a website for that purpose. - Sitush (talk) 11:13, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Of course I have heard of oral history. I have had many requests via OTRS looking to include it, the response was always the same: get it published by a reliable independent source. There are groups that specialise in collecting and assessing oral history. We aren't suppressing anything, we are merely sticking to a rule that is absolutely essential if we want to stop WP:RANDY. Oral history is valuable but also notoriously unreliable. We are not qualified to judge its accuracy, so we demand that it is first filtered through someone who does. Guy (Help!) 17:56, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Oral history is no more reliable if published by, say, SUNY, than it is if told to me or anyone else in the street. I'm well aware of why we don't allow it - said that already - but it doesn't alter the fact that we're far from being a reflection of the sum of human knowledge because we do reject the hearsay variety that is the very basis of, say, most South Asian societies: they believe it to be true, indeed they their day-to-day lives are guided by it in many instances, but we suppress the information. But I give up - if you have a god complex about Wikipedia and its role in the world then there isn't anything I can do that would change your mind. - Sitush (talk) 21:52, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

It is more reliable if placed in context with other evidence, and that is what professional historians do. I don't have a god complex, you have simply failed to make your point well enough. Guy (Help!) 21:57, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Oral history

The topic of oral history keeps coming up and I do think we can deal with it in our general framework without ruling it out entirely. The question is not about absolute reliability, like everything else the question is about relative reliability -is there a more reliable source? Let me try an example: say there is a town of 50,000 people in the interior of India that hasn't had a newspaper or publishing house during its long history. It has been mentioned by others but only briefly in the following way "Joe visited it in 1580," "they sent Bob as a representative to the x meeting in 1720." etc. Summarizing those reliable sources we might be able to say "The town has existed since at least 1580." Can't say much of anything else, leaving our coverage biased. But what if an editor interviewed the retired head of the local school on videotape? Or perhaps the local priest, minister, religious figure. A 10 minute video included in the article on the guy's understanding of the town's history would be as reliable as anything else. Perhaps if a university did the video it might be considered slightly more reliable, but the reader would be able to judge the reliability by himself. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 22:22, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Let me give an example where I've used oral history (from StoryCorps) in an article, Electrolarynx . I'm not sure the quote and external link are completely in line with all of our many policies and guidelines, but I am sure that our readers better understand what an electrolarynx is with the quote and links. And it is oral history. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 22:39, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 10 June 2015

News and notes: Chapter financial trends analyzed, news in brief

Traffic report: Two households, both alike in dignity

In the media: Arbitration case attracts media coverage; Wikipedia in Israel

Featured content: Just the bear facts, ma'am

Technology report: Wikimedia sites are going HTTPS only

Blog: Making Wikipedia’s medical articles accessible in Chinese

"£30,000 to teach pupils how to use Wikipedia"

The Mail is in a lather over this.[17]--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:51, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

It is, of course, impossible to be objective about whether or not a newspaper like the Daily Mail is in an actual "lather" about anything, or just going about their normal daily business. But this seems below lather level to me, given the relatively trivial sum and limited scope. Discretion and critical thinking skills aren't really required for a DM job, are they? At least it is a paying job, for now. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:03, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

It might have been cheaper to point the pupils to the Wikipedia:General disclaimer, which is linked at the bottom of every page. Job done. How about a course which trains pupils to spot mistakes and bias in the Daily Mail?--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 08:22, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

He's getting paid a similar amount to most teachers anyway so I really don't see the problem. Personally I think WP is definitely more accurate than the DM. Rubbish computer 12:38, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, Mail on Sunday.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 14:56, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

'Hopefully teenagers will be able to add this ludicrous spending to Wikipedia’s ever-increasing list of the ways council bureaucrats waste taxpayers’ money'-Is that actually about a specific article? List of the ways council bureaucrats waste taxpayers’ money doesn't exist. Rubbish computer 16:16, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Also, the best-rated comment in the comment section underneath the article is one supporting Wikipedia, as it was sort of with this article. It seems (hopefully!) that the majority of people side with Wikipedia. Rubbish computer 16:22, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Interestingly, Government_waste#Examples exists, but the article is a bit of a mess. Winner 42 Talk to me! 17:13, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Winner 42 Thanks, I knew there would be an article about this somewhere. It doesn't look like an 'ever-increasing' list, though. Rubbish computer 21:57, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Therefore a {{cn}} tag should be added to that guy's original statement. Rubbish computer 22:00, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Supports

I have started the page Wikipedia:Supports.—Wavelength (talk) 01:46, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

I had originally planned to name the page Wikipedia:Support (singular noun), but I used Wikipedia:Supports (plural noun) instead, for two reasons.

English readers might initially be alarmed by what appears to be a command ("Support!").
I could not easily find an available shortcut for the singular version, but I was planning to add the shortcut WP:SPTS to the plural version if the page was allowed to continue in existence.

However, the page has been renamed as Wikipedia:Support, and I do not know what shortcut to use with that name.
—Wavelength (talk) 03:28, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

An error has occurred while searching

Anybody concerned that Wikipedia's search function returns the error: An error has occurred while searching: Search is currently too busy. Please try again later.? Maybe Jimbo could replace the WMF search developers with the team from Wikia Search (the Google killer)? - 70.192.138.241 (talk) 12:44, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Wrong venue. Please see Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)/Archive 137#Search engine problems. Favonian (talk) 12:47, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Village pump (technical is indeed the place to discuss technical issues about Wikipedia, but there is a management issue here as well. Given the fact that actually running the servers is such a small portion of the money the WMF spends, enough money should be spent to make errors like this a lot rarer than they are. Basically, if the server that provides search functionality goes down, there should be an immediate switchover to a known-good spare server. We should not be spending money on things like Wikimania until we have spent enough on high-availability systems to reliably deliver a fully-functional Wikipedia to the user's screen. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:38, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Dog meat

The article in Wikipedia on dog meat is highly offensive to me as a dog lover. I was sent the link through twitter. Please remove. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.161.90.129 (talk) 19:20, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Although Wikipedia will remove inappropriate content for various reasons, Wikipedia does not remove content simply because someone may be offended by it. You may be interested in reading Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_censored. Deli nk (talk) 19:22, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Soylent Green is poeple! Nyth 63 22:31, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

See also: Cat meat, it may be taboo here but there are different cultures in the world you know. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:13, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

There is currently a petition on change.org "STOP THE YULIN DOG MEAT EATING FESTIVAL" which is being widely shared on Twitter. Some people have also been complaining about the Wikipedia page on dog meat.[18]. If the Wikipedia article was removed, it would be unlikely to save one dog.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 05:32, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

I looked at the article after seeing all the twitter posts about recipes in the article. Imagine my disappointment at not finding any. I guess I will just have to substitute ones for pork, beef or chicken. All those bird-brains over at twitter appear to be just repeating what someone else made up. Nothing new there. Nyth 63 07:05, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

How would we feel in the west if people from the Islamic and Jewish world insisted that we stopped eating pork or people from the Indian sub-continent insisted we stopped eating beef? So why do we think it's fine to tell people in East Asia what they can and can't eat, based on our own cultural values, while we happily kill and eat all kinds of animals? Especially when it's often accompanied with derogatory put-downs about how "stupid" and "disgusting" those Asian people are. That's what I find particularly offensive. Valenciano (talk) 09:28, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

I'd recommend you try bird brains, and even a few radioactive chicken heads. They might even catch on. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:50, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

With or without ketchup? Valenciano (talk) 09:58, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Oh yeah? And what about Hot dogs? Oh wait, um .....nevermind. Nyth 63 10:37, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Always nice with a glass of Lassie. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:51, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Just found this mouth-watering list. Nyth 63 12:52, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Meanwhile, the entry on human meat in sharkepedia was modified by a shark who seems to like it, changing the previous entry that said that it is disgusting and should be avoided. However, this may fall foul of the NOR policy. Count Iblis (talk) 15:33, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Not to mention WP:BITE, of course. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:47, 16 June 2015 (UTC) But I'm amazed they like heels.

Well I had to bring this up really (not literally). --Jules (Mrjulesd) 17:21, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Seriously, though, Islamic and Jewish communities have about the same feelings concerning pork that the US has about dog meat, and yet we have articles like Bacon explosion, which does contain a recipe. Once you start censoring to avoid offending people, where does it end? Do we accommodate vegans? Rastafarians?[19] --Guy Macon (talk) 17:15, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Personally, I find Twitter offensive. Can we delete the article on it? AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:24, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

We can, but it won't stay deleted Wily D 08:04, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Some of my best friends are goats Martinevans123 (talk) 18:25, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

@AndyTheGrump: I sympathise. Rubbish computer 22:00, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Everyone's missing the hugely offensive article Cannabalism! Now that hurts - take it down. Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:41, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

I resemble these remarks. -Roxy the non edible dog™ (resonate) 18:15, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Just pretend you are a cat, oh wait... - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:25, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Do I smell a sock here? "Sounds like a duck, tastes like a tin can..."(?) Martinevans123 (talk) 18:28, 16 June 2015 (UTC) /small>

I think Wikipedia should also remove and delete the page Rape and Murder. It will stop crime permanently. Lol.112.79.39.200 (talk) 04:00, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Plants have right to live. Stop being vegan and delete its WP entry immediately! -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.) 05:22, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Can everybody please stop using the small tags? My eyesight is not that great and it makes it hard read, especially on my smartphone. Nyth 63 10:30, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

I find the Smartphone article really offensive. I wonder could we make it all small text to reduce it's impact? Martinevans123 (talk) 10:38, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Personally I find c*nsorsh*p highly offensive and I think it should be censored. Rubbish computer 12:45, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Persoanlly I feel that censoring articles about censorship should be censored (stay with me).--Jules (Mrjulesd) 13:16, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Personally I feel that censoring articles about censorship being censored should be censored in order to prevent further censorship, and that this decision should be reached through a census in order to determine consensus, or rather censonensus because it should also be censored in order to achieve irony and that censorship of consensus should also be censored in order for censorship of censorship to remain censored and that this discussion should also be censored to prevent censorship from gathering consensus. Rubbish computer 16:15, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

You win. Nyth 63 23:18, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Eldarion's adminship

Hello, thanks God I speak English well, and hereby I can type what my problem is with this administrator. Since long time, I contribute as a faithful edior at our Wikipedia. As I opened a page for Savaş Buldan in turkish language. It was wiped immediately by him by saying no Notability. I told him that he was doing wrong, also that the page was already existing in Kurdish since 2012, and in English since 2008 with all references. What he did is just to repeat his warnings. I complain him, and I believe that he should be replaced by someone else. Thank a lot and best regards. Anton.aldemir (talk) 16:51, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

No comments on the specific issue with the administrator, but it is worth noting that individual Wikipedias are autonomous, and each have their own policies regarding notability. The English language Wikipedia for instance does not consider the existence of a Wikipedia article in another language to be significant when discussing such matters. And as a personal opinion, I don't think that our article on Savaş Buldan actually demonstrates any notability independent of the Susurluk scandal - it cites a single source covering the scandal, and says nothing about him that establishes notability beyond this. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:27, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

So, submit it for a deletion discussion then? (I would, but it's a lot of hassle for an IP to do that) 81.168.78.73 (talk) 10:51, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Acceptable?

A case of the pot calling the kettle black apparently, but is this acceptable? The infantile and attention-seeking thread involved can be found at Talk:Dominique_Strauss-Kahn#BLP_issue:_Jewishness_in_lead. Dominique Strauss-Kahn's apologist have always believed he was the victim of a honey-trap regarding his New York folly, which he has said he is not proud of. I should like, in my immature and incivil way, to see that mentioned in his BLP. 109.153.80.183 (talk) 18:38, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

User:AndyTheGrump is our very own Jeremy Clarkson. :) . Count Iblis (talk) 19:07, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

And Clarkson got sacked. 109.153.80.183 (talk) 20:13, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Had the BBC been created by Jimbo Wales as a community project, then Clarkson would still present Top Gear. Of course, Jimbo's hands would itch to do something about Clarkson's unacceptable behavior, but he would have to live with the lack of consensus in the community. Count Iblis (talk) 01:47, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Andy's told more troublesome ip's where to go than I've had hot dinners. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:38, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Troublesome as well, eh? 109.153.80.183 (talk) 20:13, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

It should of course be noted that the attention-seeker during his gratuitous swipes at "Florida herbies", off-topic comments about Wikipedia contributors and threats to run to ANI just because nobody had responded to his post after 9 hours, entirely failed to either cite any sources nor propose any text to be added to the article. Evidently not only am I supposed to watch talk pages 24 hours a day, but I am expected to read his mind as well... AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:15, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

I could have cited you a multitude of sources and would have provided you text if you had wanted it. I should much rather simply have edited the article. And I had raised the issue about conspiracy theories five days before without being taken up on it:

"[And] those so-called conspiracy theories should be noted and cited: they are after all indeed notable and not entirely implausible as these things go. At the very least they represent one aspect of the attention this matter received. Frankly, the whole section on the New York affair needs the attention of a popular historian, and not Wikipedia administrators. It's a loss, and not a credit to Wikipedia."

But I'm going to fuck off now. It's a disgrace that someone of Strauss-Kahn's stature is treated in this way by a Wikipedia editor, sanctioned it seems by its very top echelon Con. 109.153.80.183 (talk) 20:13, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Does Dominique actually know Andy? I'm sure it's still possible to provide sources. Unless that's too troublesome. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:18, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Nope. He's not a member of my Illuminati Lodge, and I never seem to run into him at Bilderburg meetings, since I'm usually too busy instructing Barack, Vladimir and Jong-un on current oil-price-rigging strategies. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:52, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Well, so I am not going to comment on what the DSK article should say, because I've not even looked at it. But I will say this: Andy, please don't tell people to fuck off like that. It's just not helpful.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 13:48, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Transgenderism and a foreign administrator's trigger happiness here and there

There are some significant problems with an article about transgender, on another wikipedia.The fourth sentence in that article [20] states that "A person with transgenderness is called transgendered or transsexual". Does that sentence need a rewrite or should one search for the best references for that claim (and perhaps even for an unrelated claim about the moon being made of cheese)? There is also a problem with an administrator on another wikipedia, who has gotten at least one innocent person blocked on English [21] At the foreign language this administrator had a contributor blocked one minute after his first and only edit. (Edit at 11.24 and block at 11.25: [22]

Another contributor was banned after his second edit, this edit [23] the administrator removed all mention about 4 countries officially implementing a practice of permitting a person to register as a third gender, rather than male or female. (The first edit was to create an article about Ulfberht swords, the second edit was on the article about Transgender.) I also submit what the administrator said about the contributor at English (who turned out to be innocent): "@Vanjagenije: I think the behavioural evidence is so strong that the accounts could be blocked without running CU. Here's some more details:". This guy was unblocked after he complained: [24]

--Steppingstoner (talk) 14:09, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

The first step is normally to raise these questions on the article talk page, Steppingstoner. If a dispute remains unresolved, I imagine whichever wikipedia project this is, probably has a form of dispute resolution. Good luck. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:34, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

European Court of Human Rights decision

I thought this might interest you. According to this commentary, "One of the worrying aspects of the ECHR decision is that it may encourage the idea that intermediaries are liable for "manifestly unlawful" content."

I'm pretty sure manifestly illegal stuff is always deleted from English language WMF projects the moment it's reported. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 14:38, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

I don't see how this will particularly affect Wikipedia. Per Wikipedia:Free speech, Wikipedia 'does not provide a platform for all forms of human expression'. And, 'Your only legal rights on Wikipedia are your right to fork (create another encyclopaedia independent of the Wikimedia Foundation) and your right to leave (stop editing).' Wikipedia also takes action to remove illegal content. Rubbish computer 22:59, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Further to what I said this appears to apply to websites who are sloppy and laissez-faire with their handling of illegal content, which does not apply to Wikipedia. Rubbish computer 11:59, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

It does however apply to Twitter, who allow active ISIL terrorists to have and use accounts for propaganda. I wonder if such laws will ever affect Twitter. Rubbish computer 22:50, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Hillary Rodham Clinton → Hillary Clinton

The sexists, Republicans, and anally-retentive rule-followers have succeeded in changing the title of this woman's biography from her preferred Hillary Rodham Clinton to Hillary Clinton. Another great day for the callous boys club that is the Wikipedia community. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 09:32, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

I also wonder if any other part of Wikipedia has been a bigger time-sink whilst still being a net negative than the Manual of Style and some of its zealots? Black Kite (talk) 11:13, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Certainly sets the bar high for any competitor. The endless insistence on finding a "better" title for Sarah Jane Brown is another example. The major problem is that they never give up, so eventually they will find a day when everyone else has lost the will to live and they get what they want. Children do this, too. Guy (Help!) 12:06, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Or a day when they get lucky with who volunteers to close the debate. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 03:49, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Guy and Black Kite, I don't know much about the usual form for Wikipedia:Requests for comment; is it usual for them to begin with a lengthy, partisan explanation as to why people should support the proposal? --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 05:22, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

(Clarification for newbies: the following quote is from the three Wikipedia editors who decided the outcome of the debate. 02:24, 17 June 2015 (UTC))

"We haven't given any weight to the arguments that because she is a woman and chose to keep her maiden name Wikipedia should be bound by that as we can't see that that is reflected in the article titles policy (see following dot points as well)."

What. The. Fuck. They explicitly gave no weight to the expressed preference of the subject of a biography. Seriously? Our Manual of Style is now more important than reality?

Jimmy, please delete the MoS. Just do it. It needs to die. Guy (Help!) 12:08, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm neither sexist, Republican, or anally-retentive, but really, isn't this the most ridiculous over-reaction? Wikipedia has joined the BBC, New York Times, Washington Post, Reuters, Associated Press and numerous other sources in not using "Rodham". Convergence with major reliable outlets should surely be a cause for celebration, not hysterical hand-waving of the kind posted above. Prioryman (talk) 12:20, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

What Prioryman said. DeCausa (talk) 12:23, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, as a non-anally retentive female Democrat, the move seems reasonable to me too. I fail to see the big deal either way. Maybe it's just the shrill identity politics of the type displayed here that makes it seem like the end of Wikipedia to some people. Deli nk (talk) 12:28, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Then I guess you're all just callous. This is the woman's preferred name. Names matter. They're an intrinsic part of our identity. That Wikipedia - including you three - thinks a style guide trumps the subject when it comes to naming them is proof that Jimmy has spawned a disgusting thing here, and I hope he's suitably ashamed of his progeny. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 12:45, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Oh, grow up, Anthony. You are being ridiculous. Prioryman (talk) 07:55, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Well no, Wikipedia has not joined the New York Times. [25] What's especially perverse about the decision is how many high quality encyclopedia biographies use Hillary Rodham Clinton - no, it is not a cause for celebration to use headlinese, as Wikipedia is WP:NOTNEWS. Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:41, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Ah, I love the smell of hysterical political correctness in the morning... Less cholesterol than bacon... Carrite (talk) 13:22, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Hysterical. Does this place get any more tin eared? You're sure you don't want to preface that with "I'm not sexist but..."? And you ran for the WMF board and garnered quite a bit of support. Unsurprising, really. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 13:59, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

It's actually not a matter of sexism or lack of sexism from where I'm sitting, it is a simple COMMONNAME question. Let there be no mistake, HRC is herself running away from the middle name now that she's in full blown Politician On The Make For The Big Prize mode. Then again, I'm voting for Bernie... Carrite (talk) 06:49, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

For me the fundamental problem at the root of this case isn't sexism. It's not sexism that keeps us calling Yusuf Islam Cat Stevens. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 11:51, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

He is both Yusuf Islam and Cat Stevens, depending on the time and the context, and he is hopefully treated that way in the article. The title at the top of the piece is small potatoes so long as the content is done right. Carrite (talk) 16:49, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

It matters little what you call the documented social controversy around women's names that has played out in the subjects' life - it happened whether anyone purporting to write an encyclopedic article about the subject cares or not, even for editors who have expressed their political opposition to her. Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:14, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Have you ever done any OTRS work? Issues like this are really upsetting to article subjects. Guy (Help!) 14:03, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

I don't work for the subjects, I work for the readers. This is an altogether silly subject, frankly — no matter which side won, there's always gonna be a redirect from the other. I find the shock-shock-shocking melodrama stirred up in this thread to be hilarious, frankly... Take a bow, all of you who have your boxers in a wad about losing a mundane content debate. Carrite (talk) 06:35, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Actually, each option serves our reader equally well. The only practical difference between them is one option respects our subject's preference and the other disregards it. The former entails a minor breach of a trivial rule, and we allow that trivial rule to trump our subject's preferred name.

It's a combination of autistic attachment to petty rules and psychopathic disregard for the dignity of our subjects. That's, in a nutshell, the dominant pathology of Wikipedia. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 11:51, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

It's not quite the case that each option serves the reader equally well for biography, as shown in HRC's wide use in encyclopedic biography. In her life, as well documented in the sources, she has struggled with the social controversy or prejudice against women who maintain their pre-marriage name in their post-marriage name. That naming issue and struggle is of a time and place that informs about the subject. Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:35, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

You're right, Alan. Sorry. Jimmy made a similar point last year too, which I'd forgotten:

It seems that all available evidence is that in this particular case it doesn't matter from the perspective of search engines being able to direct people appropriately. It probably does matter from the perspective of understanding - it's an important part of her public persona that she has chosen to keep her birth name in this fashion. (Naming conventions are changing, and she's an important catalyst in that.) And it certainly matters from a BLP perspective - and that's true even though it is a relatively minor matter.
— Jimbo Wales 14:34, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

If you're reading this, Jimmy, I commend Alan's !vote in the RfC to you, as well as those of the editors he mentions in that !vote, Wasted Time R (one of the main authors of the article), RGloucester and ╠╣uw. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 14:28, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

My view was that the entire discussion should have been disallowed as an unnecessary and repetitive time-sink. The result does not change my view that it would have been better to leave things alone, especially given the robustness of the redirect system. Newyorkbrad (talk) 13:45, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

So, no comment on the fact that the closers took no account whatever of the subject's preference. Your one observation is that it wasted editors' time. Disappointing coming from you, but I suppose not very surprising either. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 13:59, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Newyorkbrad: Yes, absolutely, it was and remains a titanic waste of effort that should be better spent elsewhere - a perfect illustration of the old saw that "a foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds", but now we have a result that the subjects is on record as not preferring. Which is doubly stupid and makes us look like dicks into the bargain. Guy (Help!) 14:02, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict with JzG; responding to Anthonyhcole) Well, I didn't put everything I had to say about the matter into my one-sentence comment. (It's a refreshing change for me to occasionally be criticized for writing too little rather than too much.) The fact that the article was at a title preferred by, or at least acceptable to, the BLP subject, is a main reason I thought yet another RM discussion wasn't necessary or helpful. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:04, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

For the Jackass who started this thread, Hillary Clinton calls herself Hillary Clinton on her campaign website. I suggest you drop the stick and find more windmills to tilt at. Calidum T|C 14:35, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm not a Jackass; nor American. It's not about politics for me. I spent the last two days hectoring ArbCom for their complicity in the defamation of a conservative British politician. It's about this being a really shitty excuse for an encyclopedia when it comes to BLPs. And it's getting worse, not better. (Read User:Risker's excellent summary of the Grant Shapps scandal. [26].) --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 15:38, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Is Hillary Clinton an anally retentive Republican?[27]. Anyway, constipation is a serious condition, so let's have a little sympathy for the stuck-up bastards.Anythingyouwant (talk) 14:48, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

All major reliable sources of an encyclopaedic or respectable journalistic character use HRC, as shown in the discussion. This change merely shows that Wikipedia is no better than a tabloid rag, better for paper mache than for reading. RGloucester — ☎ 15:13, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Why do people come to this page to complain about content disputes not going their way? It is not like Jimbo has a history of stepping in and settling content disputes by fiat when they don't turn out "right"(TM). Chillum 15:43, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

I thought Jimmy would like an update. He did ask Clinton's people last year which title she preferred. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 12:24, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

I guess if you constantly attempt to move a page, and you eliminate most uninvolved female or feminist admins, you are bound to get a "favourable" decision from a few of the dude-crew. At least two non-Americans and one non-admin. I wonder what the discussion was like that brought about the quote:
"We haven't given any weight to the arguments that because she is a woman and chose to keep her maiden name Wikipedia should be bound by that
from the decision was like? Each one of these closers have lost any 'Support' for any position of authority on Wikipedia from me, and have a well earned "Oppose". If the Gamergate decision didn't show what a boys club this place is, this most certainly cemented it for me. Dave Dial (talk) 16:31, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

No, that was the quote that stood out for me too. They might have well have written "we really don't give a shit about the subjects of our BLPs, as long as we follow some arcane policy written by people who clearly didn't care either". And I didn't even take part in this nonsense. Black Kite (talk) 17:24, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Yes, unfortunately, that must be one of the most thoughtless things ever written in one of these Wikipedia bureaucracy 'memos'. It's so thoughtless about anything having anything to do with approaching actually writing an encyclopedia article about a person that it is hard to believe anyone on Wikipedia could, in some 'official' capacity, write that. Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:41, 11 June 2015 (UTC) (Ping may be proper given such a critique of their writing: @Callanecc:; @Mdann52:; @Euryalus:) (Sorry, when I posted, yesterday, it appears I did not do ping right, apologies: @Callanecc:; @Mdann52:; @Euryalus: Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:51, 12 June 2015 (UTC) )

In this day and age, any "because she is a woman" argument is a bit delicate. On the bright side, if people want to get the policies changed then we can have another move request. I don't think it's thoughtlessness that caused the present policies to exclude "because she is a woman" provisions, but I could be mistaken about that.Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:54, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Not at all. It's not a quote from policy - nothing forced them to write such a sentence - they, in astounding poor judgement, chose to. Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:05, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

The wording may be imperfect, but it seems like basically a reasonable response to commenters like the one who said: "Since I'm male I don't fully know and appreciate the well acknowledged choice of women to keep their entire name as they prefer it, which seems to conform with policy here." If all BLP subjects came within that principle, then there would never be any need to do anything but what the BLP subject wants.Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:31, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

No it is not. There is no need to write so poorly in a close to deal with any comment, and certainly not for your parade of horribles reasoning. 18:55, 11 June 2015 (UTC) Even the comment you post to says nothing about "binding". That we are to show respect for BLP's is not negotiable in policy. Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:38, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

It could have been worded better, but let's not give it the worst possible interpretation.Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:02, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

No interpretation required, it demonstrates thoughtlessness, all on its own. Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:56, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

In addition to being a basically valid response to comments like the one I quoted above, it's also worth considering the context. If your interpretation were correct, then there would have been no need to later say, "We note that WP:MOS#Identity (regarding the subject's preference) is only considered if...." Thus, in context, the closers were saying that the gender of the BLP subject does not require us to be automatically bound by her naming choices, not that her naming choices are necessarily irrelevant.Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:02, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

What a bizarre thing for them to comment upon (they could not do it more thoughtlessly) - as the controversy in society, for someone of this subject's time period, only arose for women. Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:14, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Well, when one responds to a bizarre comment one often sounds a little bit ... bizarre.Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:19, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Not if they want to demonstrate good judgement. Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:38, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Wow. I am a woman in a primarily male professional field. I had left wikipedia for many years and actually came back as a result of noticing the discussion about the Gamergate case that made it into the press. My current content project is biographies of scientists from underrepresented groups. And I cannot believe that first bullet point quoted by Dave Dial above. I haven't yet managed to get my brain to assimilate the idea that three people agreed to put their names (incidentally, usernames they chose for themselves) to such a disrespectful statement about a living person's identity. It would be hard to write a single sentence that more perfectly encapsulates the concept of systemic bias. I am so disappointed at this community's apparent unwillingness to treat the subjects of its articles with more respect than we give to our own ridiculous made-up pseudo-impartial bureaucratic rules. Opabinia regalis (talk) 17:51, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

While the wording may be unfortunate, let's not kid ourselves and pretend Wikipedia cares about a subject's preference. See Cat Stevens, Mos Def or Kaley Cuoco. Each of them have changed their name yet we stick with older ones. The latter, interestingly enough, now uses her husband's last name in addition to hers, yet no one seems to sound the alarm over that. Further, Hillary contradicts her own preferences when she runs for president without Rodham in her name [28]. Calidum T|C 18:15, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Why do some editors talk about stage names, as if every name is a stage name - it just shows further lack of attention to subject matter, indicative of the 'let's move from a perfectly fine title - because that's gotta be our purpose' actions. Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:28, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Move along folks. We have redirects to cope with this trauma. Your energy is better spent fixing up articles. I bet Hillary doesn't give a shit what Wikipedia says, nor should she. Trying to conflate the rename with some kind of hatred of women or sexist ganging up is patently absurd. To run to Jimbo like some kind of headmaster to rectify some kind of evil action is absolutely pathetic. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:13, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Well, she does give a shit and Jimbo posted it here last year.

Sexist results of processes designed and implemented by individuals who are not themselves sexist or misogynistic is the whole point of the concept of systemic bias. Opabinia regalis (talk) 20:47, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Are you kidding? Jimbo says something so it's gospel? Get over it. Really it's not worth it. When she becomes the next POTUS she'll be Hillary Clinton. Then we can all step down and relax. This is nothing to do with sexism, callousness or any of the hysterical outbursts. It's to do with common names. Now please, move on. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:51, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Her common name is "Hillary Rodham Clinton", always has been, and always shall be. RGloucester — ☎ 21:41, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

"...always shall be" illustrates why your opinion is nonsensical. But it's all opinion ...and that's why we have neutral univolved users closing these things. DeCausa (talk) 21:47, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Oh, believe me, I tryed to be clean and clear for the RM. I made a very detailed policy-derived argument, backed by reliable sources. That was all for nothing, ignored, so I believe I have the right to overdramatise now. RGloucester — ☎ 01:21, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

...even if they close it with utterly shockingly bad rationales. Because we let anyone close these things. Wikipedia: the encyclopedia where anyone can close discussions badly. Black Kite (talk) 23:14, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia: the encyclopedia where anyone can close discussions in a way I don't like (but if they do, I'll react with overblown hysteria especially if it's about a drearily unimportant issue). DeCausa (talk) 07:20, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Yes, clearly our dealings with the articles of living people are immensely unimportant. It's much more important to make sure WP:COMMONNAME is imposed with unflinching rigidity. Black Kite (talk) 11:25, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

To the extent that WP:COMMONNAME is not imposed with unflinching rigidity, shouldn't closers defer to !voters, or should closers simply substitute their judgment for those of !voters? The latter doesn't sound quite kosher to me.Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:09, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Of course, Hillary Rodham Clinton is very common in the sources - and when editors demonstrate over and over again they could care less about the encyclopedic subject (much less the actual person) they are purporting to write about, they have demonstrated no editorial judgement, quite the opposite - they went, 'I count one, two, three, . . . ', and/or ' this algorithm or search result mentions such-and-such in some unknown context - so let's go with that', etc. And that's when they weren't blatantly contrary to policy stating they had some personal or national or what they swore they knew from personal experience, bias.-- Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:23, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

In light of these comments I propose a change to Hillary Rodham (voter pronunciation: Hillary Clinton). Although a little wordy it sums up the reasons for all this nonsense in the first place, and is probably the most accurate of the lot. --Jules (Mrjulesd) 20:43, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

We are, after all, dealing with an arch politician here. The middle name was used for opportunistic reasons in some years ("I am the proud candidate of the feminist tradition, vote for me!") and it has been dropped for opportunistic reasons in the current campaign ("I am the unthreatening, moderate voice of reason, centrist men, vote for me!"). The name at the top of the Wikipedia page doesn't ultimately matter a whit to anybody who's not grinding one sort of axe or another. The COMMONNAME argument in this case makes sense to me, which automatically makes me a sexist, anally-retentive, autistic Republican, according to some people... Of course, they don't believe in policy, such as, for example, WP:AGF. Carrite (talk) 16:58, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

More likely, of course, is that her website is hillaryclinton.com because millions of US voters can't spell "Hillary", so they definitely don't want to be introducing another six letters into the equation. Black Kite (talk) 17:09, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Carrite, Why you are making your personal opinion about the subject an issue, at all -- it is irrelevant to editing any article, isn't it, and can only harm Wikipedia (Are you speaking here on the basis of your own foray into electoral politics)? Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:19, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Are you actually contending that this entire subject naming "controversy" isn't completely 100% bottom-to-top politicized? Why no thread about the decision I made to title a new piece Anton C. Hesing instead of A. C. Hesing or Anton Hesing? (P.S. I have been a political animal for my entire life. Trust me when I say that HRC is intentionally not using the middle name herself during this campaign as a calculated political move...) Carrite (talk) 18:21, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Sorry then, if you are bothered by it, but you have deliberately and openly rejected any assumption of good faith for your editorial opinion on the move - to you it was political decision and not an editorial one, and you, here, personally criticize the subject saying you personally "know" her motivations for her actions -- all of which is far, far beside the point - you have now implied that her name tells us (whether for good or bad) much about her, and as an encyclopedia that is writing a biography that's the very information we are to be imparting - not enshrining our politics, nor our personal lives (whether in politics or not) in our editorial decisions. Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:47, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

It's a simple content question, and it is decided, but the shrill arguing continues on the talk page — which contributes not a molecule to encyclopedia content. This entire thread is a waste of time, other than as a source of mirth which some of us derive from the morning aroma of bacon substitutes... (See also: Gamergate controversy, Private Manning, Muhammed images.) Moving on, I have work to do... Carrite (talk) 19:20, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Sure, it is content and content is about imparting information and you have just argued that her name tells us much about her. One would assume you are amused by what you say are politics (as that's what you are into your whole life) - it's just that you view editorial decisions that way. Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:44, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

"If you have the facts on your side, pound the facts. If you have the law on your side, pound the law. If you have neither on your side, pound the table." --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:59, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Ha! That's two great aphorisms I owe you. Guy (Help!) 21:14, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

I hope whoever writes the next analysis of the gender gap on Wikipedia takes a look at the discourse in this thread. I'll get started: hysterical, shrill, hysterical, "move along", "get over it...relax...move on", silly...melodrama, boxers in a wad, hysteria, grow up, "trust me", "shrill...waste of time...moving on". Oh, and despite the gendered language, it's actually not a matter of sexism and this has nothing to do with sexism. Glad to hear you Serious Encyclopedia Builders are moving yourselves along, because those of us who find this decision and closing statement problematic are clearly busy getting the vapors. Opabinia regalis (talk) 00:46, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Well....there is hope for all POV pushers now. Good for them....and bad for Wikipedia. Oh well.--Mark Miller (talk) 01:05, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
Opabinia, above I said, "For me the fundamental problem at the root of this case isn't sexism." Of course sexism is a large part of what motivated this title change. Just as bigotry is a large part of what keeps us calling Yusuf Islam Cat Stevens. But bigotry and sexism wouldn't get traction here if callous disregard for the dignity of our subjects weren't a locked-in part of the ethos here.

In this resolution, the WMF pays vague, mealy-mouthed lip service to the notion that we should take into account the human dignity of our subjects. I opened a discussion about including language to that effect in our policy, Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons, but the proposal was defeated. Perhaps it's time to have a more widely advertised discussion on that point.

I'm not optimistic, though. If we say, in our BLP policy, that we should respect the human dignity of our subjects when doing so won't unduly diminish the reader experience (or words to that effect) the bigots, sexists and political POV-pushers will come out in force to defend their right to insult and degrade; and they play dirty; and there's a lot of them here. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 04:46, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

She must be following Wikipedia, and gotten the message, for the first major rally of her campaign: Hillary's rally and rationale: More Rodham, less Clinton Wbm1058 (talk) 03:40, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

:o) --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 04:18, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Evidently CNN haven't... AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:17, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Fox News says that Hillary Rodham Clinton is no Franklin Delano Roosevelt. It's no secret that Fox doesn't like Democrats. Time will tell whether the intials HRC become the primary topic for a president, as FDR and JFK. Wbm1058 (talk) 12:47, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

The very idea of comparing Hillary Clinton with Sarah Jane Brown, as done somewhere above, seems to indicate some slightly sexist/Republican/anally-retentive trend (one half of each, may be). Looking at the en:wp article, it seems that the most notable achievement of Sarah Brown was being the spouse of Tony, not so different from Bill Clinton whose most notable achievement was being the spouse of Hillary. Pldx1 (talk) 08:26, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Um, Sarah Jane Brown was actually the spouse of Gordon Brown, and if you read her article you'll see she is easily notable on her own merits. Black Kite (talk) 09:44, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
Indeed! Mixing Gordon Brown with Tony Blair was some kind of lapsus. Sorry for that. For the rest: the most is only the most, not the only. Even Bill is also notable on his own merits (to reuse your words). Pldx1 (talk) 10:21, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
By the way, a careful inspection of the Sarah Jane Brown page shows that this living person has been infoboxed using an officeholder infobox, using parameters order=, term_start=, term_end=, predecessor=, successor=, and so on where order/office is "Spouse of the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom". This doesn't appear to be the misdeed of a Republican's conspiracy, nor of a Democrat's one, but her so infoboxed predecessor Cherie Booth, and her so infoboxed successor Samantha Sheffield have also been graced with the same officeholder infobox. Did we really have a citation to back-up the existence of such an Office in the UK ? Pldx1 (talk) 11:35, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Now that's interesting. The links are to Cherie Booth and Samantha Sheffield. But these are the people we know as Cherie Blair and Samantha Cameron. 5.150.92.20 (talk) 13:26, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

My point was not about whichever name is the most ...as you see fit... name to address or to identify these three living persons, but about the fact that they are presented as human beings having been in charge of some Office in the UK, and about the fact that being described as the xth successor of Catherine, Lady Walpole in such an Office could be perceived as slightly inappropriate. Pldx1 (talk) 15:45, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Looking at Samantha's article, I see it is "Samantha Cameron", redirect from "Samantha Sheffield" and "Samantha Sheffield Cameron". The infobox quite correctly describes her as "Spouse of the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom". I think our readers are savvy enough to understand that the office referred to is that of Prime Minister. 5.150.92.20 (talk) 09:29, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

It's actually Billary Clinton :) . Count Iblis (talk) 13:26, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

The problem with the infoboxes isn't either sexism or politics. The problem with the infoboxes is that Wikipedia thrives on OCD and people with OCD don't like leaving a couple of exceptions behind. So you get infoboxes universally used whether they are appropriate or not. This problem is endemic to Wikipedia and is why there are so many problems with people blindly following rules without considering individual cases. Ken Arromdee (talk) 04:42, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Which nicely links to the start of the conversation. I'd never considered that those showing such rabid adherence to the MOS were actually displaying symptoms of OCD, but thinking about it you could well be right. Black Kite (talk) 09:33, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
- Who else has more than 10k Wikipedia edits other than people with obsessive compulsive disorder?Anythingyouwant (talk) 14:33, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
  - Me, for one. Routine, would actually be one of the least attractive things here. Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:04, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
    - It might be interesting to have a random collection of Wikipedians take the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory. :-)Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:13, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

The Jeb Bush campaign has contacted WikiMedia to ask why there isn't a big discussion about Jeb Bush on Jimbo's talk page. Count Iblis (talk) 17:32, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Politics of the name

Okay, I'll bite - what is the reason that Republicans (according to some) want the article to be HC whereas Democrats want HRC? I don't see any political implications whatsoever. (This isn't "Barack Obama" vs "Barack Hussein Obama".) It seems to be a politically neutral issue. --B (talk) 18:14, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

You mean, as in the phrase, "sexists, Republicans, and . . ." I don't know what was meant by the person who wrote it, but I interpreted that as "conservative" in general, perhaps because the documented social controversy surrounding women who kept part of their pre-marriage name in their post-marriage was raised by traditionalists (ie conservatives) in society. Although, it's since been said by someone else above, that the entire conversation was "political". Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:33, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Ironically, in this election cycle the HRC campaign will be subtly spinning the short version of the name and the Republican pundits will be sneering Hillary Rodham Clinton... Just wait and see. They're already running a general election campaign in their heads. If Bernie starts to put on pressure after New Hampshire and she has a real race in the Democratic Party, just watch the maiden name come out of storage... For our purposes at WP, there is no need for the Rodham to differentiate the subject from other Hillary Clintons and the short version is the most likely search term, thus should match the page barring an extraordinary reason why this should not be so... Carrite (talk) 00:05, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Incivility from AndytheGrump

[29] I pretty much responded with the exact same vacuous abuse just to show him how cheap it is. Surely such mindless rudeness is not allowed here? Captain JT Verity MBA (talk) 17:41, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

See e.g. [30], where this contributor has chosen to add "Tomatoes are legally classified as vegetables, but they are fruits" to our article on Race (biology). Seems to be under the misapprehension that Wikipedia articles and talk pages are some sort of forum for random unsourced commentary, along with vacuous claims of a 'nefarious purpose' based on nothing at all. Or perhaps 'Captain JT Verity MBA' would care to enlighten us as to what exactly this 'nefarious purpose' is supposed to be? AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:05, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Evidently the 'Captain' thinks that Wikipedia is a Marxist plot: [31] AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:11, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Isn't it?!?! Then what the hell am I paying my dues for?!

What on Earth does this, true or not, have to do with your disgusting manner? Captain JT Verity MBA (talk) 19:08, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Um, no. it doesn't work like that - if you are going to complain about my behaviour, your own abuse of Wikipedia facilities as a soapbox is going to get discussed too. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:21, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Sure we can address what I wrote after your abuse (and which wasn't directed to you), after we address your abuse. Captain JT Verity MBA (talk) 19:24, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Well, Andy was responding to your posts on race which try to draw some sort of parallel between the concept of race in human culture (which is an artificial social construct) and different breeds of animals. Since you are a new editor and are diving into articles on race and race & intelligence, you should know these are very contested subjects and have even been the topic for an arbitration case (see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Race and intelligence). Discretionary sanctions apply to edits in this area so please do not edit carelessly. You can expect future edits in this area will be scrutinized, as most subjects under DS are. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:27, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Yes I was (loosely). Does this excuse his incivility? "the concept of race in human culture (which is an artificial social construct)" is this the official WP position? Do no scholars disagree with this? In fact I drew parallels between the naturally derived infrasubspecific races in other organisms, based on ancestry, or genetic or phenetic similarity, and human races. If one brings up artificial breeds that will be dismissed as "different" for some reason, when the artificiality is the only difference. Captain JT Verity MBA (talk) 19:34, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Captain, I think you're just comparing apples with oranges. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:58, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Why? Captain JT Verity MBA (talk) 20:01, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Because even when they see the salad dressing, tomatoes don't blush. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:25, 18 June 2015 (UTC) ... but I'm no scholar, alas.

Could you cut the lame jokes please. Captain JT Verity MBA (talk) 20:42, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Sincere apologies. I thought it was a step up from vacuous abuse. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:49, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Correct definitions often depend on context. A biologist classifies fruits based an botanical characteristics such as seed location. A farmer bases it on wether he has to replant every year. A tomato or pumpkin has to be replanted every season so they're vegetables and strawberries are not. Oversimpifying a bit but it explains how a tomato can be a fruit or a vegatable depending on who is talking. Nyth 63 23:44, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

It's a good thing that modern genetic testing can prove that there really is only an infintesimal difference between any appearently distant groups such as say, Autrailian aboriginals, Native Americans, Chinese, and Brits, so we can dispense with the whole silly notion of 'race' and 'breeds' among humans. At the same time, it is amazing that these minor differences allow such a rich variation in phiysical traits and allow tracing of ancestry. As far incivility goes, I don't feel that one persons incivility can ever excuse or justify someone else's. Nyth 63 23:00, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

And, as an encyclopedia, WP does not have an OFFICIAL POSITION on anything. It can only repeat and codify facts that are verified in external published sources. That is why there is such a strong anti-POV position taken by most experienced editors and admins, even grumpy Andy. Nyth 63 23:17, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Ironically, with regard to gender — which is very, very definite in an XX and XY sort of way — it is now in vogue to assert that genetics has nothing to do with anything, a person is what they declare themselves to be at a news conference. Can't have it both ways, it seems to me... Carrite (talk) 04:22, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Yes you can. The fact that biological fathers exist and can be identified by DNA testing does not in any way make an adoptive father any less of a father. They are separate but related concepts. --Guy Macon (talk) 05:07, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Since both editors were equally rude to each other, I don't see what you expect us to do about it Captain. But yes, editors are certainly suppose to do our best to assume good faith and treat others with civility, which isn't what this looks like for either of you. Best thing to do in most of these types of cases is just move on. Use citations/references when you add content in the future, to show editors where you got the information from. CorporateM (Talk) 05:46, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

I simply copy pasted back his own abuse to show how gratuitous it was. Captain JT Verity MBA (talk) 09:28, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

And he simply verbally assailed you in the first place to "show how awful your editing was". You can see how nobody is "showing" the other editor anything, except about themselves. There's never a good reason for it. Being rude to others doesn't lead to any kind of education or enlightenment for anyone. CorporateM (Talk) 16:02, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

I wonder what the OP's original account was? The degree of familiarity with meta-space is inconsistent with a genuinely new user. Guy (Help!) 11:17, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Peer review of my edit and reward for ...

Is there any appropriate award for this edit/editor [32]? And may I have a peer review of my revert of that edit - before she pisses on the subject again, and his grave as of today? --Gazprompt (talk) 15:24, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Are you a User:Sju hav sock? Looie496 (talk) 16:00, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 17 June 2015

In the media: Wikipedia wins Asturias Prize; printing out Wikipedia; HTTPS switch

Arbitration report: An election has consequences

In focus: Three weeks to save freedom of panorama in Europe

Op-ed: Making a difference in Wikipedia, one GA at a time

Technology report: HTTPS-only rollout completed; proposal to enable VisualEditor for new accounts

Interview: A veteran’s Wikipedia edits help him understand the brutality behind Yugoslavia’s wars

News and notes: Labs outage kills tools, self; news in brief

Featured content: Great Dane hits 150

Discussion report: A quick way of becoming an admin

WikiProject report: Western Australia speaks – we are back

Opinion article from Alastair Sloan

Alastair Sloan, a London-based journalist focused on human rights and injustice, has written some words of wisdom about the Wikipedia co-founder and the future. --2001:558:1400:10:6CA9:5BD4:3938:6DEF (talk) 18:34, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, but I am with Jimbo on this one. If you had $500,000 in your pocket, would you donate it to the UAE government or use it to promote free speech in the UAE? --Guy Macon (talk) 22:36, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Can you point to how even $10 of the $500K has gone to promote free speech in the UAE? -- 2601:42:C102:B8DD:59F0:6D9:50E4:613A (talk) 03:14, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Request to get help - religious fanaticism in English Wikipedia

Hello Jimbo! In 21 century Inquisition returned, now - Orthodox Inquisition which does not implement crimes on the practice (but theory). Their famous representative urges burn people alive even (Russian Wikipedia gives more info about this priest and actor, he has relation to the ROC and now). The ROC means corruption also. The concept of The ROC acts against human rights on highest level (freedom of conscience - evil by their opinion). Their main Holy was a pervert and the Church does not hide it on their website. But on English Wikipedia governs religious fanatic: Evensteven. He provoked the war of edits to remove the shameful information from the article (my friend was blocked because of him). Religious fanatic destroyed useful contribution after this action. I ask you punish the provoker. And admins must restore the contribution (only truth is there because). Admins have no blame (they acted in accordance with the rules, but these rules were directed not against the provoker). This looks solooks so and number of interesting facts can become more (info above):

Interesting facts

The Basis of the Social Concept of the ROC contain norms which condemn the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, like and constitutions of most states, because these documents give for people right to have the freedom of conscience. The ROC supposes that such right - is evil. But the Constitution of Russia also permits the freedom of conscience.^[1]^[2]

Vladimir the Great who baptized Kievan Rus', had a large number concubines (if to trust to early sources).^[3]^[4]^[5]

Thank you! https://translate.google.com (to understand better). I hope on your help to restore justice and contribution of my friend. - LORT44125 (talk) 15:13, 21 June 2015 (UTC).

Your "friend"'s edits were rejected as poorly formed and amounting to a novel synthesis from published sources. You would need to cite reliable independent secondary sources that make the point being advanced. That is, scholarly books and journal articles drawing the link between the documents cited, and the "interesting facts" alleged. It would also need to be in rather better English - try asking one of the Russian speakers on English Wikipedia. Guy (Help!) 16:40, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Yes. But if sources belong to a subject of an article, they can be used. The Basis of the Social Concept of the ROC are located on the website of the ROC (official resource). Easy delete: "is evil" (to be neutral totally). Info about Vladimir the Great - content from different sources (can be used only Karamzin, for example). About corruption (telegraph). About priest and actor (huffingtonpost). These two facts were not published yet in the section for interesting facts. All of this can make short to be free of grammatical mistakes (all facts). - LORT44125 (talk) 17:32, 21 June 2015 (UTC).

Not the way your "friend" used them. In any case, this is a content dispute and belongs on the talk page of the article. Guy (Help!) 14:24, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

This is the history of the ROC, and are used authoritative sources. This is encyclopedic information without any conjectures. Can even create section: Crimes of the ROC (corruption and so on). Even ped.philia is their deal. But why make such damage vs the Church .. Interesting fact does not mean crime. Many crimes were during more than 1000 years (burning alive - including). For example, I dont wish write about executions. But if will created new section with relevant name - everyone will write about executions. In the same time - this is truth and encyclopedic information without any violations. I think that Wikipedia does not wish depend of any fanatics. War of edits must be stoped immediately. When fanatic begins "take action". Religious fanatics can not be tolerant (example very near). Here you can understand - why the vandal became change text (argumentation for the good of the ROC in accordance with the the Concept). Be against human rights can not be something useful (axiom). And he was not against of interesting facts in that time!!!!! He began change configuration of actions when he saw possibility to destroy all via war of edits. My friend simply ignored him. Because discussion with fanatic - empty action (without meaning). Such discussion can be continued during "million years". And else: fanatic collected many of new edits for the own good. He changed original text via many stages + rollbacks and templates. - LORT44125 (talk) 17:05, 22 June 2015 (UTC).

It is still a novel synthesis from primary sources. At this point you can either keep ranting against Wikipedia's "bias", or learn the policy reasons why your edits were rejected and formulate a valid edit instead. Your choice, really, but please be aware that only one of the two will work. And it's not the first one. Guy (Help!) 06:45, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

But primary source is used in Wikipedia long time ago: Russian Orthodox Church (reference 43). LORT44125 (talk) 14:42, 23 June 2015 (UTC).

Statement of fact also: "The Basis of the Social Concept of the ROC contain norms which condemn the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, like and constitutions of most states, because these documents give for people right to have the freedom of conscience." (improvisation does not exist, only truth exists) LORT44125 (talk) 14:58, 23 June 2015 (UTC).

This source does not belong to the ROC (independent, says and Russian Wikipedia). But the Concept - only on Russian language (website has English version in the same time). Text can be changed so, for example, alternative version: "The ROC condemns right of people to select their religion, which must be only Orthodox in accordance with the Concept." And else one reference in addition (III.5). There's even a blackmail against the state. LORT44125 (talk) 15:47, 24 June 2015 (UTC).

Nobody supports him on the talk page (he alone in his wish to hide the truth of people). He and many different users saw the new section (whole week!). Was silent consensus before Vladimir the Great. Now exists consensus and about Vladimir (nobody supports the fanatic). I suggest restore the new section with some changes if is need. Im afraid restore without permission (I dont want troubles from any admin). This permission = consensus (but I dont know on 100%). I ask give me sign. You also can say me: what is need change if is need (independent source I gave). And I think that old version was better. - LORT44125 (talk) 11:57, 25 June 2015 (UTC).

Believers or atheists can leave here their opinion (or they can be free of this (silent consensus). And silent consensus already was earlier (note). LORT44125 (talk) 17:36, 25 June 2015 (UTC).

References

^ The Basis of the Social Concept > III. Church and state (III. 6.)
^ The Russian Constitution: Chapter 2. Rights and Freedoms of Man and Citizen (Article 28)
^ Prominent Russians: Vladimir I
^ Nikolay Karamzin: History of the Russian State (Volume 1, RU)
^ Святой князь Владимир

Another "interesting fact": Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Need1521. Valenciano (talk) 23:02, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Yibin

One thing I enjoy doing is thinking about large places in the world that I've never heard of. It's a sort of hobby of mine to try to reduce the number of those. One great way to play this game is to go to List of cities in China by population and scan down until you find a city you've never heard of. Another way to play is to think of a city that is famous (to you) and scan down and find one of similar size and read about it.

San Francisco has a population of 850,000 for the city proper and a metropolitan area of just over 4 and a half million. Yibin has a population of 836,000 in the "built up area" and just under 4 and a half million in the wider area. So, that's interesting, a city about the size of San Francisco - and I'd never heard of it.

So I read the entry and ai yi yi, what a mess. We confidently explain that the economy there is declining because of anti-corruption policies: "Nevertheless, the economy of Yibin has been crashing since 2013, due to the anti-corruption policy issued by CCP. It leads the local economy to suffer a devastating blow. What's more, the consequence of failing to alter its economic structure and develop new industries leaves public to deem that there is little sign to show the recovery of local economy. Some experts consider that the increasing number of corruption existing in China once made huge contributions to the prosperity of local economy. With the anti-corruption keeping going, it has the potential that the local economy will keep declining."

1. Now - I happen to do this kind of idle activity when I'm stuck in a line, or waiting for a plane to take off, or on a bus. On mobile. I found it quite difficult to try to edit it and gave up. That's a different story, but one that I hope will provoke some thinking. Shouldn't editing from mobile devices be easier?

2. Even here, on my computer, a simple thing that any Wikipedian will want to ask themselves is "Ok, who put that in there?" Figuring that out is a tedious process of looking through revision history. Surely it can't be that hard to automate (with imperfection, of course) the process of figuring out who first insert a phrase - and including that capability as a default and easy to use feature of the software.

--Jimbo Wales (talk) 18:42, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Update, the user was User:Doudoumo and he's never been warned or really even spoken to, apart from being greeted in automated ways.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 18:48, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Interesting concept for finding articles, its worth noting that San Francisco has been a featured article since 2006 while Yibin has been sitting at an auto-assessed stub class since it was created. Also, there is an external tool for searching revision history, WikiBlame created by Flominator on the German Wikipedia. Though it isn't exactly perfect, it is much better than looking through the history trying to find an edit without a summery. Winner 42 Talk to me! 18:58, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

I think User:Doudoumo was not trying to vandalize the article. Maybe he was trying to say that the liquor industry is associated with corruption and that anti-corruption policies hurt the economy because the city is largely dependent on the liquor industry? What do you think of that theory? Brian Everlasting (talk) 19:51, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

That's possible. But with the apparent absence of sources it was correct to remove it. Quite how the anti-corruption caused problems is not described in the edit, again making it less likely to be correct. --Jules (Mrjulesd) 20:10, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

And to be clear, I wasn't saying this was vandalism. It was not a good edit, but it wasn't vandalism. And looking at (some of) his other contributions, he seems to be good-faith. I just long for people like this to come and meet friends and talk with us and learn our values and objectives in a friendly way.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 21:08, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Regarding "who put that in there" - this sounds quite feasible. I picked a phrase sort of at random "Yibin is located in the southeast portion of Sichuan". As most editors know, I can go to the revision history search, enter the phrase, and after a little churning, I will learn that Mathpianist93 added the phrase on 22 June 2010. However, why couldn't we make it so that a reader can highlight the phrase right-click and have an option to find out who edited it and when? Most of the tools are already built we may simply have to link them together.--S Philbrick (Talk) 20:05, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

That's exactly right. I'm aware of "WikiBlame" - it's been around for years. But it isn't integrated with anything and not many people know about it. Everyone should be able to use it.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 21:08, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

The history tab of every page contains a link to it in the External tools section. "Revision history search". --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:15, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

It used to be that one had to know about the tool and know where it was—it is a step in the right direction that it is listed on the top of the history page now, but it still isn't well integrated. As a crude next step, (as I suggested above) it would be nice if you could just highlight a phrase, right-click, and invoke Wikiblame. A more comprehensive follow-on might generate a document identifying all editors who edited that phrase. It might be one, but it might be several, and Wikiblame only finds the first. An even more ambitious approach would allow you to highlight a word, say "Yibin" and find out when that was added or removed. At the moment, Wikiblame will track down any addition of removal of that word, rather than a specific placement of the word in a specific sentence. I use Wikiblame a lot, but I still find the need to slog through diffs, especially if the issue is a single word used multiple times. We could make it easier.--S Philbrick (Talk) 15:36, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

I completely agree with you there. The software needs to make finding phrases through article revisions a lot more easier (faster wouldn't hurt either). Would also like to be able to search through an editor's contribs for a particular phrase. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:43, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 24 June 2015

From the editor: The Signpost tagging initiative

Op-ed: Content Translation beta is coming to the English Wikipedia

Special report: Small impact of the large Google Translation Project on Telugu Wikipedia

Featured content: One eye when begun, two when it's done

Recent research: How Wikipedia built governance capability; readability of plastic surgery articles

Technology report: 2015 MediaWiki architecture focus and Multimedia roadmap announced

News and notes: Board of Trustees propose bylaw amendments

In the media: Turkish Wikipedia censorship; "Can Wikipedia survive?"; PR editing

Blog: 7,473 volumes at 700 pages each: meet Print Wikipedia

Arbitration report: Politics by other means: The American politics 2 arbitration

'Sinister' - Harassment on Wikipedia News Piece

This is now beyond usefulness. If there are any allegations, please take these to the relevant venue. As far as I can see, this has gone too far, even for this page. Mdann52 (talk) 17:18, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

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

@Jimbo Wales: Hi there. Please see a link to a news video I have made about sinister goings on here on Wikipedia. Episode 4 - Sinister

I am a journalist and blogger. I run my own website and I have also, from time to time, sourced stories for papers such as the Daily Mail. I am studying a Master's Degree in law combined with a solicitor's certificate. I have spent a lot of time representing vulnerable people and their families in Court pro-bono. In fact I was praised in the British Parliament by then Liberal Democrat MP John Hemming for my legal skills representing a vulnerable woman - http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201314/cmhansrd/cm140113/petntext/140113p0001.htm

My coverage of the recent ArbCom case on Grant Shapps and Richard Symonds was the source of articles in almost every UK national publication - http://matthewhopkinsnews.com/?p=1634 . My work was also directly cited by Breitbart - http://www.breitbart.com/big-journalism/2015/06/10/shapps-case-raises-questions-for-wikipedia-and-the-guardian/

There is likely to be ongoing coverage of Mark Bernstein's conduct on the English language Wikipedia. If MarkBernstein's conduct and that of his supporters goes unchecked it is likely to seriously damage the project's reputation.

I recognize that Mr Bernstein believes that he is the victim of anonymous GamerGate misogynist harassers. Fairly obviously I am no such thing, being open about my identity (which is on my user page) and also having been praised for my equalities work.

Is there anything you can do to help? Vordrak (talk) 20:38, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

I have rarely seen someone worthy of the appellation "journalist" [33] attempt to incite the parties of a story they are covering to resume a dispute the parties have considered settled]. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 11:49, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

There is likely to be ongoing coverage of Mark Bernstein's conduct on the English language Wikipedia Odd, using the passive voice. Why don't you say you are going to be writing about Mark Bernstein on your blog? Own the harassment you are eliciting.

You came to Wikipedia to examine the Chase Me arbitration case and now you are moving on to Gamergate now that the sockpuppet case is basically over. If you want to cover Wikipedia "controversies", go to Wikipedia:Lamest edit wars where you will find an endless source of articles that are the source of disputes. One of my favorites was the blood, sweat and tears spent on debating Danish pastry. It's riveting. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:08, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Vordrak contacted me and asked me to comment for his piece before he published it, but I refused. He was quite polite and professional about it, but his requests to me and other editors were coupled with statements that certain actions he disapproved of should be changed. I and other administrators attempting to police this topic area are concerned that such comments may have a chilling effect on editors working on these articles, that such requests may be seen as an attempt to intimidate editors into taking or not taking certain actions at the risk of facing negative media scrutiny. I should also note that his video concluded with a call for users of a particular pro-gamergate online forum, a forum that has been the source of harassment and outing directed at Wikipedia editors, to edit Wikipedia. While anyone can edit Wikipedia, calling only for users on one forum that is on one side of the issue is inappropriate. Gamaliel (talk) 20:47, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

@Gamaliel: I have never in fact attempted to edit the topic area you are policing. I did suggest you reconsider a comment that a conflict of interest concern raised by an editor was 'fraudulent' as I thought it might be uncivil and WP:Wikibullying. Given the prolific number of articles by Mr Bernstein, in one case accusing the entire Arbitration Committee of 'purging' 'feminists' 'en-bloc' from the encyclopaedia, I hardly think you or he can complain of some media attention raising the opposite view. Vordrak (talk) 21:09, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

I have no problem with you bringing up your viewpoints in your videos. I do have a problem with your problematic interactions with other editors and your calls for only one side of the issue to edit the article to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS, as I noted above.Gamaliel (talk) 21:22, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Some errors in your article which I've noticed: Right great wrongs and No editor is indispensible are not policies, they are essays. ~~Chase me being a Lib Dem supporter wasn't mentioned at all in Arbcom's decision.~~

PS:Love how you put "ethics in journalism" second to fighting SJWs, when describing what GG is.

PPS:Look up WP:Meatpuppet Bosstopher (talk) 21:16, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

@Bosstopher: hi there! I am flattered that you have watched the video. I believe findings 6 and 7 of the Arbitration Committee refer to his political leanings albeit obliquely so I disagree that is an error - worth looking at the PD talk page for that case to see how people were thinking.

Thank you for the correction on RGW and Indispensibility - because they are regularly cited and widely accepted essays I believe that describing them as policies is an acceptable simplification for a wide audience that is unfamiliar with Wikipedia nuance.

Regarding meat-puppets, fairly obviously no such question arises. I am not a single-purpose editor having arrived on the wiki for a completely different purpose and having a history both with this account and before of editing in a different topic area as my primary interest. Indeed I have not edited in GamerGate at all, ever.

As many GamerGater supporters seek to edit here, it seems to me that suggesting they genuinely support the encyclopaedia, learn policy and etiquette is eminently sensible. I note in particular that Mr Wales invited them to engage constructively. I did read the policy as you requested and note that raising the issue of 'meatpuppetry' inappropriately can be considered WP:UNCIVIL. Vordrak (talk) 21:40, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification, although Arbcom never explicitly state what you state I guess it's a fair enough conclusion to reach. I'm not accusing you of being a meatpuppet, just noting that encouraging people of a single viewpoint to edit Wikipedia in the hundreds pretty much matches the description at WP:MEATPUPPET word for word. What you're suggesting would definitely count as a manipulation of consensus.Bosstopher (talk) 21:51, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Would like to add that the whole giving eachother barnstars to look like experienced users thing, is pretty dodgy and will come across pretty dodgy to most people who see it. Also the thing about pushing admins through RfA that support your faction is a dreadful idea. Wikipedia editors should act as individuals and greater factionalism is the last thing Wikipedia needs. Bosstopher (talk) 22:03, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

@Bosstopher: I did not suggest giving barnstars to 'look like experienced users' I suggested engaging with the encyclopaedia as a whole and learning its etiquette, which includes giving barnstars. Bear in mind Jimbo Wales already suggested GamerGate members join so getting them to do it constructively seems to me a good idea.

In any case, there will be a follow up article in the next few days. [redacted] I am sure Jimmy Wales is sick of this controversy but I invite him to comment or at least acknowledge. Vordrak (talk) 22:30, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

I was referring more to what the other moderator of the subreddit you advertised is saying[34] Bosstopher (talk) 22:36, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

@Bosstopher: I feel you may have misunderstood them. However as you are referring to what you say is an off-wiki post by someone else I am not sure I can add anything. You are of course welcome to join the subreddit and provide guidance on Wikipedia policy. I am afraid it is nearly midnight here in the UK so I am going to bed now. I also do not wish to become involved in a drawn-out thread. Please do not be offended when I do not reply further. I will post here again when / if the follow-up article is ready. Vordrak (talk) 22:47, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

It is inappropriate for you to use this space to make vague unsubstantiated accusations against living individuals per WP:BLP. Please use the appropriate noticeboard if you have a specific complaint. Gamaliel (talk) 00:14, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

@Gamaliel:My concern about MarkBernstein is that his entire Wikipedia activity at the moment is in fact WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS and it has fostered an ongoing conflict. Vordrak (talk) 21:40, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps you are correct, but a similar case could be made against any number of editors currently working on these articles. I doubt we are going to ban a whole bunch of editors on these grounds unless there's another arbcom case, and singling out one editor who disagrees with you while ignoring similar behavior or mindsets from others is not appropriate. Gamaliel (talk) 00:14, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Not that I want to disagree with you -- the use of Wikipedia as a weapon to drive women out of computing is wrong, and it is a wrong you ought to help me in righting (if it has been done) and preventing (if people seek to do it). However, some of the other Wikipedia pages I have watched -- often for years -- range from Dave Winer and Dame Wendy Hall to Aaron Swartz and Doug Engelbart, Kathryn Cramer, Cathy Marshall, Frank Westheimer, Russell Meiggs, Ted Nelson, and George P. Landow. I've edited many of these recently, and in others I've silently researched confirmation of other people's edits. Perhaps all these fit together in the sinister conspiracy you apparently think I lead; I'm eager to learn how these people connect! MarkBernstein (talk) 22:17, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

But of of course, it hasn't. Bonnie Ross (notablr red link considering all the posturing) being a featured speaker at E3, Microsoft exec and head of HALO with a decade at least as a game developer simply ignores the pet Social Justice crusade. There are at least a dozen more. Posing the personal SJ crusade as defending women in gaming ignores the voluminous number that are actual impacting AAA games instead of tropey indie houses. --DHeyward (talk) 08:52, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

With the number of times you have brought up the redlink Bonnie Ross you yourself could have created the article and brought it up to GA standards if it is that important of a topic to you/the gaming world. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 11:58, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Interested editors are invited to contribute to the draft at I have created at User:Ryk72/Bonnie Ross. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 05:45, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

You've mentioned this a lot and I think it's an interesting point. People (myself included) seem to stick to more controversial topics, which leads less controversial things to be neglected. For instance despite all the edit warring and discussions over Gamergate and the role of online harassment within it, online harassment itself is just a redirect. I tried to see if I could get a few people editing the GG article involved in writing a quality article on online harassment, but ended up getting distracted by the opportunity for some prime Gamergate related Wikipedia shitposting. Would you be interested in organizing some sort of online edit-thon equivalent, or a Gamergate version of Wikipedia:The Great Wikipedia Dramaout, to encourage those editing in the GG topic area to try and write these articles on women in game industry? Or perhaps a more lightweight solution would just be a list of redlinked game developers who you think have enough coverage to meet GNG.Bosstopher (talk) 10:04, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

We're seriously discussing Youtube "journalism"?--Jorm (talk) 13:54, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Right up there with make believe universities, eh? Mroj (talk) 17:25, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Oh, look! My very own stalker! --Jorm (talk) 17:45, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Did you quit like you said you would if anyone told you what to do or were you forced out for incompetence with Flow aka liquid threads 3? :kiss: Mroj (talk) 18:03, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Oh! He's helpfully created a new subreddit called "The Great Work" to help train new Gamergaters how to game the system! Highly ethical and neutral! Quelle suprise!--Jorm (talk) 13:59, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

It's not "journalism", it's not a "news video"; it's just one more video blogger advocating for his personal point of view. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:26, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Ironically your actions have led to the AE request against Mark being closed with no action.[35] Gamergate really is its own biggest enemy.Bosstopher (talk) 14:04, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

@Bosstopher: thanks. I read the AE request, which I am not involved in. The 'no action' decision had clearly reached community consensus before I posted. Also the video does not actually demand any sanctions. I actually admire Zad68 for resisting the appearance of appeasement and will post on his talk page for reassurance. Vordrak (talk) 14:16, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

There are a whole bunch of Wikipedians defending the still-slanted, still-polemic Gamergate controversy piece that are utter failures at embracing NPOV, who are indeed there to "Right Great Wrongs" (which in actual fact are biased misrepresentations of the Gamergaters' political movement). They know who they are, or should, and they need to stand aside. But they'd rather have a little political fight with their "enemies" because both sides are ultimately playing a political "game" against one another. It's absolutely sterile, it reminds me of the wackadoodle sectarian politics of 1980s American Maoism. This dispute could be solved with a neutral rewriting of the article that doesn't equate Gamergate with misogynist terrorism — which the obsessive white knight horsemen believe it to be. And so on it on it goes, producing nothing positive other than the fact that half a dozen of the most tendentious and abusive Wikipedians are tied up and occupied. Carrite (talk) 15:05, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

This from the editor who thought an anonymous Gamergate propaganda piece was suitable "evidence" for the ArbCom case. How exactly does assisting a bunch of Channer trolls to recruit for their cyberbullying mob -- whose plainly stated intent was to drive someone to commit suicide via non-stop Internet harassment -- on Wikipedia benefit this project in any way? How is that suitable material for an encyclopedia? And why does this community persist in treating these cyberbullies with kid gloves (Assume Good Faith!) when they continue to come here and use Wikipedia as a platform to perpetuate their harassment? Any editor on this project who supports or tolerates this behavior -- and it's very clear who they are -- should be deeply and thoroughly ashamed and should take themselves off to Encyclopedia Dramatica where they belong instead, post haste. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.166.3.157 (talk) 17:47, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Carrite, as an experienced Wikipedian, you might be well-placed to try to do that rewrite, probably starting in your own userspace. I, for one, would be very interested to read and compare the two versions.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 20:24, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

As a note on this, because GG involves one specific, disproven allegation against a living person (one that is well sourced), and the potential to include more, we (the community) have been hesistent to create drafts for the GG article outside of one specific page that is also watched by admins and interested parties. And yes, people have tried to use this draft page to write a more neutral version, and have been shot down by the group of editors that Carrite refers to, using policy as a tool to shut down discussions that don't fit their take. --MASEM (t) 21:58, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Hi Carrite, I thank you for your eloquent words on this; as good a summation as I think we will get. I also thank Jimbo for his suggestion; but (per the discussion here) I am concerned as to how a draft might be composed without a rehash of the previous & current POV-pushing. Advice from experienced editors on this is aspect is appreciated. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 02:21, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

I think Masem is the person in the best position to attempt a neutral rewrite, although it would probably have to happen off wiki due to the wasps' nest that would be stirred up. There are probably six or so Wikipedians that would need to be topic-banned off before any alternate text could emerge since the battle between the two sides has been lopsided in the mainstream media. As for myself, I'd rather eat worms than get tangled up in that fiasco. There are tens of thousands of things I'd rather invest my time on than revert wars and toxic talk page discussions with partisans. The Gamergaters aren't looking for a complete whitewash of the piece, I think, they just don't want to be equated with the most malevolent and malicious trolls on the internet. It is a legitimate grassroots conservative political movement, in my estimation. Give them a little fairness and I'll bet it would chill out. But right now it is a street fight and street fighting can be pretty fun... That goes for both sides. Carrite (talk) 05:09, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

When you freely choose of your own accord to associate with a hashtag that has been used from the very start to sexually harrass, threaten, dox, swat, etc. numerous people, then you choose to be "equated with the most malevolent and malicious trolls on the internet". That is not the fault of a Wikipedia article. Reso lute 13:34, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Outside of documenting the GG situation, that's certainly a statement I'd agree with. But on Wikipedia, we cannot look at the situation with that type of judgmental view. It would equivalent to writing the Scientology article as if it was a monetary scam from the onset instead of a recognized religion, or the Westboro BC article as if they were a hate group first, a "church" second. We certainly have plenty of RSes that assert that as long as GGers that want to talk ethics keep using the GG, their words will be tainted and likely ignored, which we include already. But collectively the article is being written that Wikipedia should take the same judgemential attitude, which is against NPOV. We are certainly not in a place to take what little there is in RSes to make them look better than the public perception nor strip away the documentable criticism of the group, but we should be at least documenting their case without judgement in WP's voice, and that simply isn't happening due to the entrenched attitude of editors there. --MASEM (t) 14:30, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Bingo! Carrite (talk) 16:10, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Sorry @Vordrak: it appears I've arrived too late. I reviewed your video, and the wealth of information you've collected was very enlightening. I was able to read a completed article as well and really enjoyed the report. You were asking if there were anyway to assist you(?) I believe you are in the middle of publishing another article? I can point out a few things that my be all too obvious or not for you; I noticed you sourced BreitBart in a citation of one of your articles. As I was informed Breitbart.com is not a "reliable source", although a simple search result will clearly show you that Breitbart has been used over 300 times in Wikipedia pages and some 2,000 different occasions in [[36]] of Wikipedia. But for whatever reasoning, when it revolves around the #gamergate hashtag ... it gets removed.

ALSO - Involving the same #gamergate topics (even in this very thread) you will notice the same group of Editors responding to whatever you have to say. It doesn't matter if you're a newcomer or someone whose been here for that past 10 years; These same people appear and make comments: There's User:MarkBernstein, User:TheRedPenOfDoom, User:Bosstopher, User:Jorm, User:NNeil, User:Liz ... Where's Peter? Oh there's User:PeterTheFourth below this thread accusing you of WP:Canvassing. Maybe it's just me, but I feel like there's some irony in that. Quite frankly, I'm surprised Cullen328 haven't stopped by to lend their CONSENSUS.

Lastly; You may see this thread closed, deleted, collapsed or purposely knocked off-topic all in the name of controversy. I'm not psychic, but I do recognize patterns. It has become quite close to WP:Forum discussion. You may want to volunteer your questions to Wikipedia:Village_pump which is used to discuss the technical issues, policies, and operations of Wikipedia. I hope it helps. Please feel free to ask me anything on my TALK page --j0eg0d (talk) 21:25, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

that there are 300 pages citing Brietbart is more indication that there are 300 pages that need to be cleaned up than that there is anything wrong with the fact that brietbart has been excluded from acceptable sources related to gamergate -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 00:56, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

See, that's the problem right there — instead of approaching this question dispassionately and attempting to compile truthful facts, whatever the source, to tell the full, multifaceted story, the Party Line™ is to throw out entire sources regardless of whether the information they contain is accurate or not. So a conservative political movement can not be documented by published information in conservative media sources, while the worst abuses of the lunatic fringe, as reported in the mainstream media, are equated with the silenced political movement. It is fundamentally unfair, and the fact that you can not see it is fundamentally unfair from an NPOV perspective is indicative to me that you should not be working on the piece. But you are. Carrite (talk) 05:22, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

You do not get to a collection of "truthful facts" by going to nontruthful sources. You start with sources that are "truthful" and represent them. That is pretty basic editing and I am surprised that someone with such experience is advocating that we throw out basic policy content to get to some "non party line" -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 11:47, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

That's complete baloney. Facts are true or assertions of fact are false. The best publication can be wrong; the worst publication can be right. We as encyclopedists dedicated to the doctrine of NPOV have to be smart enough to sift the evidence and present true facts dispassionately. But you are one of the steamroller operators and you make use of a flawed doctrine (a relic from the bad old days of "We Don't Care About Veracity, Only Verifiability") that allows you to do that... Carrite (talk) 16:16, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

I have said not one thing about "We Don't Care About Veracity, Only Verifiability" - I have stated that we present the content that reliable sources present in the proportions that they are held by the mainstream academics and that we do not create "false balance" by giving credence to "facts" that we may "know" that are not supported by the sources. If you think that any of that is "relic" that no longer has community support, please demonstrate by changing the policies. I am sure that you will find the community is actually quite supportive of the "relics" . But maybe you and Masem can go off and start your own "Pedia of facts that Masem and I and Gurney Halleck know that aren't reported appropriately in sources." -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:03, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

People who hide behind pseudonyms shouldn't be so scornful of people who hide behind pseudonyms. I stand behind every word of my indictment of the way you and yours are treating Gamergate controversy. Carrite (talk) 03:08, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

And I take your indictment with every bit of seriousness that should be given to someone advocating for the use of Gurney Halleck as a reliable source. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 03:37, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

What's wrong with replying to people who have questions about a topic on Wikipedia which you enjoy editing? Bosstopher (talk) 21:50, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Canvassing by Vordrak

Hey. Thought it was relevant that Vordrak is inviting several editors to comment here who've in the past been critical of Mark Bernstein. Specifically, here, here, and here. PeterTheFourth has made few or no other edits outside this topic. 06:50, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Rather ironic observation coming from a WP:DUCK SPA that began editing WP at ARBCOM with a wealth of WP knowledge. --DHeyward (talk) 09:06, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

How many Troll points does this guy get? -Roxy the non edible dog™ (resonate) 16:22, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

I would subtract at least 10 points for being yet another gamergater. There's no creativity in that. Reso lute 19:28, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

PeterTheFourth You can't define a journalist, seeking information to complete an article, in the same category as canvasing because you're suggesting @Vordrak: has some ulterior motive. He's obviously not optioning for AE requests or changing a WIKI page. If anything we should encourage more journalists to write articles about Wikipedia. This uncritical enthusiasm would hint at (maybe) you take a break from this *White Knighting*. --j0eg0d (talk) 20:04, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Blogger <> journalist. Let's not give Vordrak some kind of halo here. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:10, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

This man is well respected by the British Parliament [User:NeilN|NeilN]], that's quite an honor, in the very least have some WP:Civility.--j0eg0d (talk) 21:42, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

j0eg0d, did you watch his video? Have you read his blog? He came to Wikipedia to cover one controversy (the sockpuppet arbitration case) and now he's moved on to the next controversy.

And "white knighting" is dismissive of anyone whose opinion you don't agree with, implying that they are criticizing Gamergate out of a misguided effort to be heroic instead of using their own reason and intelligence to come to their own conclusions about it. That could be seen as a personal attack. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:20, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Liz I finished watching the video and I read one of his articles. He's quite the proficient author. I stopped by to simply respond to a Vordrak's question. The "White Knighting" comment isn't meant to dismiss what PeterTheFourth's claims. It was suggesting he calm down for a minute to review this person's question. It's a more neutral alternative than finding suspicion with anyone posting the word gamergate.

j0eg0d, have a sense of proportion and cut down on the hyperbole. If Vordrak is Sam Smith then "Sam Smith assisted her in successfully retaining her capacity to instruct a solicitor" hardly equates to "This man is well respected by the British Parliament... that's quite an honor." And you might want to look at his user page. [37] "I write Conservative blog" = blogger, no? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 22:58, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Okay. I understand now. In the past 20 hours I've read so many self-posts about a hypertext researcher & chief scientist of Eastgate Systems, Inc that I assumed we were ignoring Wikipedia Policy and encouraging self-promotion. I'll watch myself next time. Thank you.--j0eg0d (talk) 23:11, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

@J0eg0d: Really. Care to provide some diffs to these "self-posts" made in the last 20 hours? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 23:42, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Really? It's been mentioned 5 times just in this page. I'd be willing to bet it's written on a lot of t-shirts too.--j0eg0d (talk) 00:06, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

@J0eg0d: Let's see what you wrote: "In the past 20 hours I've read so many self-posts about a hypertext researcher & chief scientist of Eastgate Systems, Inc..." When you posted that, MarkBernstein had used that phrase once to defend himself against having undisclosed COI. More poorly thought out hyperbole on your part? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:29, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

I don’t know what “optioning for AE requests” might be -- does that mean PeterTheFourth gets a player to be named later? As for "uncritical enthusiasm," I’d have thought Peter was being quite critical and far from enthusiastic -- in either sense of the word. MarkBernstein (talk) 20:17, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

In general as this page is for philosophical discussion of interesting questions, and not a formal noticeboard where actions are taken, canvassing doesn't really apply. Anyone should feel free to invite anyone they like to a discussion here. Notice that by the same token, that Mr. PeterTheFourth has few other edits besides this topic is also pretty much irrelevant. I'd rather us focus discussion on ideas rather than who is putting forward those ideas.

And to take it one step further - I'm not that interested in discussing the conduct of individual wikipedians here. That can sometimes be relevant, but primarily it will be relevant in the context of a good-faith discussion of the principles at issue and how Wikipedia structures and policies might be improved.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 20:23, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Hi Jimbo Wales, I respect your comments w.r.t the purpose of this page. The "interesting question" that I see lurking in the corner is that sections of the community appear to have lost faith in the Administration and Arbitration Enforcement as it applies to this topic (broadly construed). There is an appearance that the administrative actions under the community & discretionary sanctions have been unevenly & inconsistently applied; and have been done so in a manner which biases the content of mainspace Articles within the topic area.

While it would be unreasonable to expect absolute consistency in administrative decisions - a sort of "mandatory sentencing" - and some allowance for the sanctions to reflect individual administrator preferences must, of course, be made; it is not reasonable to expect that administrative decisions, either individually or as a whole, should influence the neutrality of content.

What changes would you see as being possible to restore any lost community faith in these processes, and how would such changes be best proposed and agreed?

I also note that "has made few or no other edits outside this topic" is actually part of the editors signature, not at Template:Spa tag.

Regards, - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 21:28, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

You realize that "sections of the community appear to have lost faith in the Administration and Arbitration Enforcement as it applies to this topic" can be trotted out for every single topic under AE, right? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:45, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Did it ever get to the point where editors started declaring that Wikipedia didn't deserve to survive? Cause it certainly has for this topic. 174.30.95.89 (talk) 01:19, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

See [38]. As I said, nothing new. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 01:26, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Hi NeilN, Many thanks for your kind response. While I entirely agree with you that the statement would be applicable to each topic subject to Arbitration Enforcement, I am not certain that the underpinnings of such sentiments are as easily identifiable in other cases as in this one.

Reviewing the sanctions at WP:DSLOG reveals no non-"pro-GG" editor having been effectively sanctioned for more than 3 months for either the Gamergate sanctions (community & discretionary combined), or the BLP sanctions (where identifiable as GG related). I do note that in a previous discussion, Bosstopher was kind enough to identify ReynTime as an "anti-GG" editor indef blocked outside the DSLOG-able sanctions; and that 3 "anti-GG" editors were indef topic banned in the WP:ARBGG decision itself.

But, given the 40 topic ban or block sanctions of 1 year or more in that log, or the uncounted out of process WP:DUCK>WP:SOCK blocks which are not logged there, it is not unreasonable for sections of the community to believe that there has been an abject failure to police the behaviour of one side of this content dispute; that this has in turn led to bias in the content of mainspace Articles; and consequently for those sections to have lost faith in these processes.

That incivil, tendentious or POV-pushing behaviour by self-admitted WP:SPAs is not sanctioned if they pursue an "anti-GG" line does nothing to restore confidence that administration & arbitration enforcement processes are functioning effectively.

That the donning of crampons and red & blue jimjams at WP:AE by an editor, who self admits that they are nothere to act without bias, was met with a general "meh" "nothing to see" "no action" from the admin corps does nothing to restore confidence that processes are functioning effectively.

I do not believe that it is unreasonable to call out that loss of confidence, nor to ask advice on how it might be rebuilt. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 02:15, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

People who believe in conspiracy theories may see that. However other people look at that and see that the sealion and zombie attacks have so far not been very successful and that AE is at least working in part. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 02:32, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Hi TRPoD, Many thanks for your response. I entirely agree that a number of editors view the results of the sanctions differently, and present a contrasting narrative. If I might ask - What exactly is so egregious about interested people coming to Wikipedia to edit within its principles, policies & guidelines, including interacting civilly, that it needs to be met with approbation, hostility, censure & sanction? - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 02:49, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

LOL -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 02:52, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Jimbo Wales these are the same words/ideas I've been trying to get across to several of the Editors in this room. I dislike this childish bickering more than any of the vandalism, but it's rampant within every content that invites the word gamergate. I also want to applaud Ryk72's humble comment. He's referring to a consensus of our thoughts, that continues without response. I've suggested deleting the entire Gamergate_controversy page, because it not only gets vandalized, but Admins & Editors are inviting the arguments. I don't believe it's in Wikipedia's best interest to harass newcomers that want to contribute to Wikipedia, even if that page is gamergate related; We can not take the position that every individual coming to Wikipedia is here to "troll". Can we please just delete Gamergate_controversy? --j0eg0d (talk) 22:07, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

For someone who claims not to be here to troll or cause problems, you sure are quick to open reddit threads targeting editors and ping them at every opportunity. Very ethical. Very neutral. --Jorm (talk) 22:04, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

@Jimbo Wales: This is the very definition of what I was referring to. It's common for Jorm and yet completely unnecessary. Thank you for linking to that by the way. I hope Jimbo has the time to read it. --j0eg0d (talk) 22:09, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

He's referring to a consensus of our thoughts, that continues without response. Who is this "our"? This isn't a battleground with black hats and white hats. You might find the only thing the group you identified with have in common is your opposition to one editor.

And I think it is very close to time to hat this discussion as Gamergate discussions will continue as long as people feel compelled to respond to each other (i.e., indefinitely). Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:31, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

'Improper' - Article Exposé

This is my promised followup article about MarkBernstein, based on information provided by Wikipedia whistleblowers and carefully checked by myself over the last 24 hours. The article is called Improper, and follows on from my video, Sinister previously posted.

Whilst I know media intervention can be annoying, in this case I feel I have exposed some pretty serious WP:COI rule breaches. I imagine DHeyward, Carrite, j0eg0d, Ryk72, Rhoark and Masem might enjoy.

I thank Jimmy Wales for his comments about canvassing and his suggestion about Carrite attempting a new GamerGate article in her userspace - I would certainly be willing to offer some uninvolved thoughts and support to Carrite in trying to produce something more encyclopaedic to try to pour cool waters on this dispute. Vordrak (talk) 21:46, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

You seem to have too much free time. What a waste of time. - Cwobeel (talk) 21:56, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

WHAT? If this is true, then why isn't this being relayed to ARBCOM? I knew that User:MarkBernstein was advertising his own website on Wikipedia, but this claim is a whole other perspective. I'm shocked ... Quite frankly shocked, to learn this. --j0eg0d (talk) 22:04, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

The additional diffs you've produced seem like WP:TROUT level mis-steps. Unfortunately, your unprofessionalism in this matter apparently killed any momentum to take action at AE - momentum which had seemed to be building after MB's attempt to exploit the Charleston shooting. Coordinating editing from off-wiki is also extremely counter-productive, given that is precisely the scapegoat that has been used for assuming bad faith. Rhoark (talk) 22:08, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Assumptions only go so far when the facts to the contrary keep smacking you in the face OVER and OVER and OVER again. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 02:41, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

While obviously undisclosed COI editing is a bad thing to do, you should keep in mind that COI policy is wikipedia's equivalent to internet piracy laws. Literally everyone has done it despite it being against the rules, right down from the fly-by editor who creates an article on their company and then never edits again, up to the Wikimedia Foundation itself.[39] Nobody will do anything about this because almost everyone is guilty of worse. It's also a tad bit hypocritical coming from a guy who's been using their investigation as an opportunity to give their website a lot of publicity. You could always have just messaged people privately asking for information. Altogether a rather meh article, bigger fish in the sea, bigger issues than this. Bosstopher (talk) 22:13, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Vordrak, repeatedly posting links to your YouTube videos and blog posts is considered spamming and is self-promotional. Please stop now. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:34, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

In case anyone is wondering about “undisclosed”, "Hypertext researcher Mark Bernstein is chief scientist of Eastgate Systems, Inc." has been the lede on my Wikipedia user page since September 2006 -- literally my first Wikipedia edit. For future aspiring journalists, "Eastgate" has an initial capital, it’s customary to use the full corporate name (including “Inc.”) on first appearance, if your publication uses courtesy titles like "Mr." it behooves you to use the correct title, and "typoes" are usually "typos." MarkBernstein (talk) 22:19, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

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

Sorry I was curious, but I'm looking at Eastgate Systems, Inc on google map and it appears to be a Law Firm. --j0eg0d (talk) 23:00, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

There are several law firms and a couple of accountants down the hall. Is there some reason the winner of a 2008 Hugo needs to know this, and to bore other Wikipedians with such details? MarkBernstein (talk) 23:06, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

I didn't realize I was boring you. Looking at the sign on the front, I couldn't help but notice there's no mention of another business in this 4 bedroom house. Everything indicates that it is just a law firm, so I thought I might have the wrong address. My follow up question would be, Is Eastgate System, Inc just you self-publishing your own books?--j0eg0d (talk) 23:29, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Holy shit. Are you seriously trying to out and intimidate someone on Jimmy's talk page? "I've been looking at your house". That's creepy as fuck, dude. I think we need oversight attention here.--Jorm (talk) 23:35, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

(e/c) J0eg0d8, Stop these creepy questions, right now. Alanscottwalker (talk) 23:39, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Jorm Alanscottwalker Would it be a fair guess that both of you (or at least one of you) is Mark's SOCK account(s)? It's either that or just one more example the unignored WP:Wikihounding & Tag Teaming that Vordrak referred to. --j0eg0d (talk) 23:55, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

There is nothing fair about your guess, and the rest of your post is either unintelligible or an attack. Reaally, you should stop, you should also retract. Alanscottwalker (talk) 00:02, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Alanscottwalker WP:CIVILITY — Preceding unsigned comment added by J0eg0d (talk • contribs) 00:10, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Yes. Read it. Then retract. It is assumed you understand and are aware of what you link to. Alanscottwalker (talk) 00:16, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Dear Oversight: you'll be happy to learn that I don't live in the office coop, on Watertown's Main St, where Eastgate has had its offices since the 1990s. No one lives in this house, originally built in the 18th century; it's been an office building for decades. In his famous article in The NY Times Book Review, Robert Coover compared Eastgate to New Directions; experimental publishers of modest size publishing ambiltous work. We may not have quite lived up to that flattering comparison, but I believe every monograph on hypertext fiction published in the last twenty years has discussed work we published. Moreover, our primary work has been systems development and research, and our record of publications speaks for itself and rivals that of firms many times our size. This attack would be creepy enough on its face; in the context of Gamergate violence, it seems to me that it's far, far beyond the pale. MarkBernstein (talk) 00:40, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

What a load of bollocks. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:23, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

So Mr Bernstein is making COI edits? How terrible, you'll be accusing him of using one of Wikipedia's most high traffic pages to spam his own blog next. Oh, wait... Black Kite (talk) 22:30, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

I don't know what page you're thinking of here, but for those who might actually be interested, I don't believe Wikipedia has ever been a significant referrerr to “Infamous”. MarkBernstein (talk) 22:37, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

I was rather ironically referring to the fact that Vordrak is using this page for such purposes. Black Kite (talk) 22:40, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Whoops! Sorry. My irony detector had a bad battery. MarkBernstein (talk) 22:47, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

One analogy frequently used (not least by me) for my role in Wikipedia is "constitutional monarch" in the modern sense. As the phrase goes, I claim the right "'to be consulted, to encourage and to warn" - I've given up the use of the block tool in the interests of maintaining a certain "above the fray" neutrality. As part of "to be consulted" I try to keep this page open for wide ranging discussions and think we should be more tolerant here than we would be in other parts of Wikipedia - as a type of "checks and balances".

In terms of "to encourage and to warn" I have this to say: posting creepy remarks about viewing what is assumed to be someone's office or home on Google Street View is extremely beyond the pale. If I did still use the block tool, I would block for a minimum of 2 weeks at first offense for that. It's just absolutely unacceptable behavior, regardless of COI editing or anything else that may or may not have happened. I leave it to others to decide what to do: this is my advice.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 02:30, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

I think Jimbo is referring to the following two comments by J0eg0d (talk · contribs) (aimed at MarkBernstein):

23:29, 22 June 2015 I didn't realize I was boring you. Looking at the sign on the front, I couldn't help but notice there's no mention of another business in this 4 bedroom house. Everything indicates that it is just a law firm, so I thought I might have the wrong address. My follow up question would be, Is Eastgate System, Inc just you self-publishing your own books?
23:00, 22 June 2015 Sorry I was curious, but I'm looking at Eastgate Systems, Inc on google map and it appears to be a Law Firm.

Combined with comments like this which accuse two widely known editors of being "SOCK account(s)" it would appear that J0eg0d is not here to help the encyclopedia. Johnuniq (talk) 03:31, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

I agree that this is not behaviour that is acceptable in any way. I encourage either a self- or admin redaction of the information, and support the sanction in Jimbo's comment above. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 04:06, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

I have blocked J0eg0d for 2 weeks for the above comments. DES ^(talk) 04:36, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Just as a quick comment - I took the time to go through the edits, and saw nothing concerning. The vast majority fitted into the sorts of minor and non-controversial changes that are acceptable even with a COI, which MarkBernstein had declared anyway. If there was a problem - and at best it would have been a minor one, for maybe one or two edits - the newest relevant edit was five years ago, and most were made around eight years back. Nothing current, and nothing worth worrying about. - Bilby (talk) 07:32, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

This will be my last comment in this thread - Liz is correct that it could continue as nauseam. I will deal with what I consider to be the important points. I am afraid Bilby is mistaken. Per my article MarkBernstein last edited a COI article last week (18/06/2015). The edit removed a notability tag. Prior logged edits include adding whole tranches of reviews. These are serious COI breaches.

This feeds into my previous comments to Zad68. Zad I have now published a new article revealing Mark Bernstein has carried out dozens of financial COI edits over an 8 year period. I invite you to consider taking action now, not because of press demands or appeasement because the user's conduct demands it. It is not one thing - or one incident or even one period. MarkBernstein is a consistent disruptive figure and it shows no signs of stopping. Please read the comments of Carrite above. I think the ArbCom principle 'enough is enough' is relevant.

Finally, Jimmy Wales is correct that it would be welcome if someone drafted an alternative version of the GamerGate article. I would prefer Carrite or Masem. Failing that I might at some point in the future start a private draft in my user space as I am WP:UNINVOLVED. However I agree with Carrite. If not me someone or other will clash with Bernstein and doubtless be provoked into some drama at ANI or elsewhere until he is topic-banned. I also observe that his twitter and business accounts obtain a great deal of traffic from his crusade against GamerGate and that itself may be a COI.

That is it for me, for now. There is some force in Liz comment about the merits of doing some article editing. However unless the administrators do take some action about Mr Bernstein this will continue to fester. Vordrak (talk) 09:20, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

There's absolutely no way that any sane person would consider you "uninvolved", and that reads like a fairly typical gamergate threat: "Fix this or the problems will continue", or "block and ban him or we'll just continue to throw bullshit procedures around until you're tired and quit."--Jorm (talk) 13:37, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Vordrak, just in regard to last week's edit - what you're describing is an edit by MarkBernstein that I would normally have regarded as an issue. However, he self-reverted two minutes later, as you noted. Therefore, I did not (and do not) see it as a concern. People make mistakes - realising and immediately fixing it is a positive outcome. Everything else you listed was at least five years old. You should perhaps catch up with the COI guideline - minor, non-controversial edits, including adding reliable sources (the "whole tranches of reviews" you mentioned) are acceptable even with a COI, especially one that was declared. At worst, it is not a set of serious COI violations, but a couple of relatively minor ones committed many years ago.

As per Jorm, your posts about this on KiA and WiA, along with your call for GameGaters to create accounts to edit on the article on-mass on September 1, would seem to suggest that you are not uninvolved in the issue. - Bilby (talk) 14:37, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

I find it somewhat ironic that the opponents of a movement about concerns with journalism would now be criticizing the journalism of someone else (namely, Vordrak). KonveyorBelt 22:00, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

If gamergate WERE actually a "movement about concerns with ethics in journalism" they would - you know - have at least a significant portion of their activities be about ethics in journalism rather than obsessions about the sex lives of women, endless rants about how feminazis are taking away their games, sealions beyond number to edit a Wikipedia page, endless backstabbing of anyone who is for any random reason seen to become a "shill", RIGHTEOUS brigading against rules changes on reddit, lionizing a writer who works for one of the LEAST ethical publications on the web, or any of the other items that fill the "On topic KIA" forum - except for the ACTUAL ETHICAL PROBLEM of "games journalism" being little more than a free advertising platform for AAA manufacturers . -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 03:12, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

We absolutely cannot write the GG article on that presumption that is filled with original research. Even if the group has tried to influence WP through sock/meat puppetry or trying to harass specific editors, that should not affect how we write the article, otherwise that makes WP involved in the situation. That does mean we have to be vigilant against the socks, but that's as far as it should go. We still write impartially about it, and should not be doubting what the claims of the group have been made via RSes. --MASEM (t) 03:48, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia is already involved in the situation by allowing certain individuals and cliques the right to cherry pick the interpretation of rules to favour their political leanings in WP:CIRCUS; while flouting the rules such as WP:NPOV which should be bringing those abusive editors into line. I do not understand where you have gained the perception that Wikipedia, Wikimedia and the personal reputation of Jimmy Wales are not involved. Every time an article is written Wikipedia, the foundation and the figure heads are involved. The effects of articles such as the gamergate controversy article, which does not treat the subject matter with sufficient respect is in the long term a disaster for the reputation of all groups. 77.97.24.152 (talk) 09:50, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

I get the impression that "sufficient respect" means "slant the article the way I want it". Reso lute 15:13, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

@TRPOD: I put an $5 bet with myself that someone would jump in and make a comment like this, and it took slightly over five hours, with plenty of vitriol to boot. These are the kinds of people editing the GamerGate article, folks. KonveyorBelt 17:10, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Balanced out by editors who consider Vordrak a journalist? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:18, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Ah, GamerGate: the topic that wants to take over every other topic that might be discussed anywhere on the interwebs

Jimmy, if it makes you feel any better, Wikipedia criticism websites have this problem too :-). --SB_Johnny | ^talk✌ 21:19, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

I think you need to cite some sources that Gamergate expands to fill all available space. Retract this claim because you are not being very civil to pro-gg editors. Perhaps you should be taken to AN/I for this comments; I'll leave that up to more experienced editors.--Jorm (talk) 21:28, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

From what I've seen, the spread of GG over most of the dispute resolution forums is a good example of this.... Mdann52 (talk) 12:32, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Agreed, pick a board, any noticeboard.... Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:58, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Parkinson's Law of Gamergate? It's sort of like Godwin's law except that descent into gamergate is the intent form the outset. Guy (Help!) 14:07, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Guys this is like some serious victim blaming. Like we have all these rapists on the loose and you're all "we're getting too many reports of rape how can we stop the reports?!" Srsly? Stop the rape, teach editors not to rape! #yesalleditors 166.172.56.57 (talk) 14:17, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Response to Request by Jimmy Wales

@Jimbo Wales: You contacted us on Reddit via your account verified account in the thread here and asked for changes to be made. This has been done, using your precise wording. Please let us know if any further changes are required as we are keen our community work positively with Wikipedia. Apologies for any delay as it takes time for the right people to be online. Vordrak (talk) 11:59, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Wouldn't the "great work" of a "movement about ethics in journalism" be one that, oh, I dont know, maybe aimed to train a new generation of journalists in ethical practices of what to do and what not to do, rather than attempting to subvert an encyclopedia in an effort to purge it of "SJW"s? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 13:11, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

You seem to have misunderstood Vodrak's view on Gamergate. "In reality Gamergate is a movement with legitimate concerns about extreme left Social Justice Warriors agenda pushing in the gaming media and also about ethics in journalism". Ethics in journalism comes second to fighting the evil SJWs, and he's been very open about that. Bosstopher (talk) 13:40, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

well at least now they are taking the advice given them by Singal back in the fall and being more honest about their intentions! -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 14:49, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

When you write "In order to influence Wikipedia effectively, we first need to patiently and invisibly build up Wikipedia power" I'm left with the feeling that this is an attempt to push a particular agenda on Wikipedia by questionable means. I suspect that the problems with your plan go far further than the changes proposed by Jimmy Wales. - Bilby (talk) 13:44, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Indeed. In general, it is better if people come to Wikipedia because they believe in its ethos and want to help, rather than because they want to Right Great Wrongs. Especially when the purported wrongs are not, in fact, wrongs at all. New gamergate warriors are about as welcome here as an article on Brian Peppers, and for much the same reasons. Guy (Help!) 14:14, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

It's interesting, Guy, because the much-despised 500/30 editing restriction on the Gamergate article has, as a by-product, the aim to protect Gamergate warriors from their own naivete. New editors would regularly plunge in and, like a bull in a china shop, make some drastic BLP mistakes and quickly get a topic ban and maybe a block. If they can learn Wikipedia editing practices and standards on non-controversial articles, they are much more likely to have success affecting change on the article later on down the road. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:54, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Exactly. I agree with Liz. In general, I think that Jimmy Wales' previous invitation to submit an alternative article to Wikipedia was reasonable, and not taking him up on that offer and providing an alternative undermines any criticism we have of it. I also think that people who support GamerGate should demonstrate by their conduct that they are not in fact unreasonable / misogynist / sock puppets. That is why I participated in creating the Sub-Reddit.

I also think that in general we will succeed more if we engage, learn procedures, follow them and help with article editing on other areas on the Wiki - which I will be doing more of tonight. That is why I have asked people to cooperate with Jimmy Wales request. Vordrak (talk) 18:07, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Requiring that people demonstrate that they aren't bad guys violates Assume Good Faith. Ken Arromdee (talk) 18:12, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

@Ken Arromdee: I am a GamerGate supporter, insofar as I support the stated goals of ethics in journalism, preventing agenda pushing and free speech. I inevitably assume good faith. However given the storm of allegations I think it is important for us to demonstrate good conduct. Vordrak (talk) 18:49, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

No, requiring people to demonstrate they are not bad guys merely reflects the fact that we have had a metric fuckton of bad guys come along and disrupt the project. Guy (Help!) 12:17, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

[1] The Basis of the Social Concept > III. Church and state (III. 6.)

[2] The Russian Constitution: Chapter 2. Rights and Freedoms of Man and Citizen (Article 28)

[3] Prominent Russians: Vladimir I

[4] Nikolay Karamzin: History of the Russian State (Volume 1, RU)

[5] Святой князь Владимир

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]