User talk:Jimbo Wales/Archive 196

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 190 ← Archive 194 Archive 195 Archive 196 Archive 197 Archive 198 → Archive 200

Impossible

Hello, Jimmy! I happened to see this video on YouTube that describes you as "heavily involved ... as an angel investor" in Impossible.com. Great idea for a community of mutual giving! Could you give an update, three years later, on how the Impossible project is doing? Has it become a profit center yet? --- Awaken lemon (talk) 10:49, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Profit center? It was never intended to be a profit center. :) Lily's plan for it was heavily influenced by her admiration for the Social business concept of Nobel Peace Prize winner Muhammad Yunus. In a social business any excess of revenue over costs is plowed back into the business, or invested in other social businesses - the investors do not receive dividends. The idea is something between a non-profit and a for-profit. As in a non-profit, there are no returns to any shareholders. But unlike most non-profits, these are businesses rather than charitable organizations primarily existing from donations. If you are interested in similar concepts, I'm quite fond of the Benefit corporation.
As to how Impossible.com is doing today, I wouldn't be the best person to give a comprehensive update. While Lily is a close personal friend and we speak often (lately mostly about babies as she's a new mom), I'm not involved in the day-to-day at all. (I'm not a board member, just a friend and advisor.) As an overview, I would say that the project has struggled with issues around the costs of software development - Lily funds it personally for the most part, and can't afford a huge team of developers. So progress is slower than she had hoped. But there's a great small community there and many wonderful friendships and stories have been borne out of the site.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 16:12, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for that kind and thoughtful answer, Jimmy! I thought that profit was one of its goals, since Lily said, "It’s a company run for profit, and if we ever get to that point...". I found a company financials statement online, and it looks like in 2014 there was still £250,000 or so of debt. Here's hoping 2015 can be their turnaround year! --- Awaken lemon (talk) 22:43, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
Yes, it's a social business. The point is, it's to be run as a business, generating profits, but the profits are plowed back into the business or invested in other social businesses - there is no return to investors. So it isn't a "profit center" in the usual sense. I think the social business concept is a very interesting one.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 07:41, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Personal

Hi Jimbo, Waerth here. We met once in the Netherlands long long long time ago when I helped you getting an interview with a Dutch journalist. And we spoke on IRC tons of time. Hope you remember. Seems we will meet again for the Erasmus price btw, if my work does not send me away. Anyway I need to ask you a private question. Is jwales@wikia.com the right place (or is it screened by someone else first). Or could you mail me at: walter - at - vankalken.net (no worries people my address and username combo are widely known in google :p) Hope to hear from you here or through mail. Walter aka Waerth (talk) 11:59, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm sending you an email now from my personal account.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 17:16, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
Got it. Am now busy writing a well worded email. You will get it tonight (I hope). If not it will be by Thursday. I have to fly from Amsterdam to Vienna to Beijing and back for work :p Waerth (talk) 09:04, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
Just send the mail to you and other contact. Really hope you have time to read it. Waerth (talk) 17:54, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 07 October 2015

Wikipedia & Kevin McCarthy

I'm surprised nobody has raised it here. Wow. Was all over the news last night. Was Wikipedia vandalism a factor in McCarthy pulling out? http://www.cbsnews.com/news/dhs-investigating-wikipedia-entries-on-alleged-mccarthy-affair/ And people denigrate us vandal fighters. Well! Vandalism is no minor matter. In BLPs, peoples lives and careers can be affected. (OK, saying "vandalism played a role in his pulling out" may be an overstatement, but my general point stands I think.) Coretheapple (talk) 14:55, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Before those edits were made from the DHS it was already believed that McCarthy would not get the votes needed to get the job.--MONGO 15:03, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
In a way, that makes this coverage even more interesting. It shows how important Wikipedia is, how sensitive these things are. Coretheapple (talk) 15:17, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
Dunno...more inclined to believe the IP edit was the usual trolling and innuendo.--MONGO 15:22, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
If this brouhaha was caused by a casual troll who works at DHS opening luggage or whatever, that makes it even more interesting in terms of the power wielded by anyone who comes by the site. Coretheapple (talk) 15:34, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
A a discussion on the McCarthy talk page indicates that both logged-in and non-logged-in accounts were involved in adding such material to the Ellmers article. Note the oversighted edits in the page history.[1] None of this was mentioned in the media coverage. Coretheapple (talk) 15:46, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

The use of Wikipedia as a "political weapon" is abhorrent (noting the Corbyn and Cameron articles for the UK). Jimmy - act. Collect (talk) 23:36, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

We have a dedicated article about an utterly unsubstantiated allegation, Piggate. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 00:13, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
It is indeed unsubstantiated, but nonetheless widely discussed. We also have an article on homeopathy, which is a form of confectionery masquerading as medicine. We don't require that something is real in order to have an article. That said, I agree that "piggate" is a silly-season tabloid story that has no place here. Guy (Help!) 09:55, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
@Collect, as you must realize, this is an inevitable fact of life with an "encyclopedia anyone can edit," as much as the inevitable politicians-on-the-make campaign-related biographies or paid commercial enterprise articles. There's nothing here for JW to "act" on unless he wants to lead a campaign for real-name registration and sign-in-to-edit — which ain't happening. Carrite (talk) 01:48, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
He could state that allegations and rumours in BLPs do not belong - and make it clear that this is an non-negotiable as NPOV. Or he could keep blinders on about this blatant abuse of Wikipedia. It has absolutely nothing to do, moreover, with "paid commercial editing" at all. Collect (talk) 02:34, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Rumors were actually in play, totally without any Wikipedia involvement, [2]. NE Ent 01:07, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

What the hell does it matter whether Media circus coverage of utterly unsubstantiated rumors mentions attempts to insert these horrid rumors info Wikipedia, or doesn't? Do we or do we not have a BLP policy that forbids us from covering utterly unsubstantiated rumors in an encyclopedia, even if most of today's online news media, driven by the known bait that drives clicks that yields pennies, obsesses on vile rumor-mongering?.Cullen328 Let's discuss it 06:29, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
We dont have a BLP policy that does that. If we did, Piggate would not exist. Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:46, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
Hmmm. To begin with, the news story cited says "the day before" an event which I assume to be the day of publication (October 9), so the last item on Special:Contributions/216.81.81.85 seems to be the edit in question, at 17:33 GMT on October 8. The edit lasted less than one minute.[3] The earliest story I found on kevin mccarthy dropped out on Google News is dated 10:30 a.m. in Chicago, which is probably GMT-6, i.e. 16:30 GMT GMT-5, ie. 15:30 GMT (daylight savings time). So unless something's the matter with the date, the IP edit would have had to have been made immediately after news of his withdrawal, not before, and so it should be viewed as opportunistic rather than causative. The only reason the DHS is involved is that they're investigating postings from their own computers. So I don't see this as something Wikipedia affected in any meaningful way at all. Wnt (talk) 15:42, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Non-Controversial Administrative Tool Unbundling?

In a recent WPO thread I thought for a minute about the components of the administrative toolbox and decided that the only part of it that meant anything to me as a content writer was the ability to move pages when the software automatically flagged the move — usually the result of a page having previously had a certain title and then been moved to a new one; the software fusses if you try to move it back. I was wondering, why is this ability to move attached to the Admin tools only? Would it not be possible to attach the same moving rights to anyone holding the Auto-Patrolled (as opposed to the everybody-has-it Auto-Confirmed) flag? With fewer people running for or passing RFA, we're going to need to start decentralizing certain essential actions from the shrinking Administrative corps. This seems like a logical step. Can anyone give a reason why it is not, assuming that chronic POV and edit warriors don't have the Auto-Patrolled flag (which I believe is a true statement)? Carrite (talk) 15:51, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Not saying unbundling is necessarily a bad idea, but the obvious argument I can see against it is that WP:Autopatrolled is intended to address a specific situation (users who create high volumes of articles and flood the newpages log), and the criteria for it (25 substantive non-redirect mainspace articles created without any of them proving problematic) don't really have any relevance to the ability to move pages. ‑ iridescent 16:03, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
While that flag isn't strictly vetted, it is an indicator of community trust with respect to the people who create pages. Page moving is a function closely related to page launching. Carrite (talk) 16:09, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
Page move could become very nasty in the case of a rouge mover. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 02:08, 11 October 2015 (UTC).
I assume that the Auto-Patrolled flag is assigned only to trusted users. I think that is correct. Carrite (talk) 03:00, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
In essence, you are giving them the ability to delete pages. --NeilN talk to me 02:14, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
Explain that, I don't follow. Carrite (talk) 03:00, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
Carrite, admins can move pages over existing pages, deleting them. That ability would need to be withheld. --NeilN talk to me 04:39, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
So Wienermobile could be renamed Air Force One, effectively deleting the latter? I see... That would be a problem. Carrite (talk) 14:49, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
Can someone explain why moving over a page has to delete the prior history? Why not simply retain it, perhaps at an automatically generated title in the corresponding Draft space? Then anyone could move over a page, and anyone could revert it. Wnt (talk) 15:59, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
That could perhaps be done, but the software doesn't do that now, and in most (or at least many) cases where we legitimately move over an existing page (often but not always a redirect) we don't want to retain the history. You suggestion would i think require a change to the core software much larger than simply unbundling rights. And even with that change, a rogue mover could cause problems that would take significant effort, probably by an admin, to clean up. DES (talk) 18:32, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

"values and beliefs"

Earlier this morning, I asked a question at the help desk about Wikipedia and Wikimedia's environmental (especially curious about this one) and social responsibility practices and activities as I've never seen anything about this until User:NinjaRobotPirate sent a link to wmf:Answers/Wikimedia Foundation but it is not specific. NinjaRobotPirate suggested I either email or send something here and I'm curious as to what the specifics are. Cheers, SwisterTwister talk 17:07, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia and Wikimedia are here to construct and maintain the sum of all human knowledge, not to do environmentalist work. While encouraging sustainability is not a bad thing, doing so with donor's money would be a misuse of funds. Thus, I would guess (and hope) that the Wikimedia Foundation does not invest any money on these activities. --Jakob (talk) aka Jakec 17:33, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
The WMF occupies several floors of an office building in downtown San Francisco and operates massive computer servers in several locations. Any such venture needs to consider questions of energy efficiency and sustainability. Addressing these issues responsibly is by no means a misuse of donated funds. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 21:54, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
I think it would be a problem for the reputation of Wikipedia as a publication that strives for a neutral point of view, to be an advocate for anything other than Wikipedia. --Bob K31416 (talk) 22:05, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
How is acting responsibly and sensibly violating "neutral point of view"? I think it would be best for everyone that Wiki acts smart with consideration to their actions. There's no malice with that. Take for example if Wiki were to donate to cancer and mental health research and that would only have benefits for everyone not to mention maybe even more information for Wikipedia articles. There's also no malice about caring about important issues such as these. It only makes sense that so many organizations and corporations may not be in the environment industry but still make actions such as Toyota, Ford, Google, Kroger and Yahoo! which have been open about their sustainability practices so why not WMF? SwisterTwister talk 23:14, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
Nice framing job. Going from donating to cancer and mental health research to taking a position on controversial environmental issues, if that's what you're suggesting. --Bob K31416 (talk) 23:48, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
Jim, perhaps I misunderstood the original poster's intent (or perhaps you did?). I am under the impression that he is talking about either spending donor money on unrelated environmental projects or perhaps even doing advocacy within Wikipedia itself. I oppose both, but have no objection if the Foundation just wants to make its offices greener. For what it's worth, I think that it would be a terrible idea for "Wiki" [sic] to donate money to cancer and mental health research. There are already plenty of entities that do that. Wikimedia has its own mission to fulfill, and that mission would be severely diluted if the Foundation were to become a generic charity throwing money at any cause that they deem worthwhile. That way lies serious trouble. --Jakob (talk) aka Jakec 00:43, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
I agree, Jakob. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 01:03, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
No it is that you entirely misunderstood Jakec as I never actually said of donating money to health or anything of the kind and it seems I need to repeat myself in saying I started all this because of unanswered questions regarding WMF sustainability practices. This is exactly why I stay away from discussions because there always seems to be drama. *sigh* SwisterTwister talk 04:13, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
I think it is justifiable for WMF to invest in local, physical sustainability measures, such as solar rooftop power or geothermal cooling systems, or even a larger renewable energy facility situated nearby with a dedicated power line, provided the cost aspects aren't too terrible. Despite the ravages of the deletionists, a big part of WMF's "brand" is preserving knowledge, and if they can say that they have made themselves safe from social, legal, or military disruptions to the power grid (or sudden price increases in electricity), that is a worthy accomplishment. However, I don't think it is worth buying in to the corporate model of paying some company halfway across the world that says it will plant some trees between its parking spaces to offset your carbon emissions. Wnt (talk) 23:15, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
Before this causes any unnecessary heat and drama, I started this because I wanted answers to unclear statements and the closest that I also found is here and here which is simply unclear again. SwisterTwister talk 23:57, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
From those two links is the sentence, "Our task force felt that net neutrality, censorship, copyright, digital divide, and environmentalism were all issues worth considering (with privacy as a subordinate, less strategic concern)." This looks like the kind of tactics used in a congressional bill, of tacking on a topic (in this case environmentalism) that doesn't fit with the others. --Bob K31416 (talk) 00:19, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

I think this is a reasonable question. What monitoring of social and environmental issues is done by the foundation? References on the foundation wiki are scant wmf:RFP/2013_Datacenter mentions "The environmental impact of the facility (cooling efficiency, reclaimed water, etc) will be an important consideration for final site selection." In wmf:Press releases/Wikimedia Selects EvoSwitch June 2009 a Green Data Center was selected for the European servers. I've no idea if its still being used. It looks like one past board member is from a consultancy firm works on social and environmental issues. wmf:Press releases/Ana Toni Announced as New Wikimedia Foundation Board Member

Its high time the WMF produced some kind of publicly available environmental audit. This is certainly a question which may influence some donors and is quite timely in the run up to the Paris talks.--Salix alba (talk): 05:56, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Thank you so much Salix alba for giving constructive, useful and positive feedback, something this thread certainly needs. Your last sentence is exactly what I was thinking. SwisterTwister talk 08:43, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
Indeed. The annual report doesn't tell us anything. This information should be in such a report, because rising electricity costs and carbon taxation represent significant 'downside risks' for the foundation. Wnt (talk) 12:59, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
I looked at the link you gave, annual report, and didn't see where environmentalism info would fit in. Specifically, what would you want to add, and where would you put it? --Bob K31416 (talk) 15:03, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
True... it's not much of a report, really. But there's no real reason not to add a section on carbon balance or environmental impacts generally. Wnt (talk) 15:37, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
If one looks at the Table of Contents of the annual report, a section on environmentalism doesn't seem to be appropriate. From what you seem to be suggesting, the heading of section 5 would be changed to "Your contributions are the foundation of free knowledge and environmentalism". This isn't appropriate because environmentalism isn't one of the purposes of Wikipedia. --Bob K31416 (talk) 16:09, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
@Bob K31416: Sounds like an otherstuffdoesn'texist argument to me. None of the sections were there until someone wrote them. What I know is that a good, proper annual report to stockholders by a big company would include a section disclosing challenges and risks that could reduce the stock value. For Wikipedia, such challenges include this and other things like Google's switchover to summaries reducing click-through; the report should let people know that there is some planning of what to do in such situations, and work being done to reduce the risk. Wnt (talk) 18:40, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
You just seem to making statements of opinion without any rationale. ...and that's just my opinion : ). Regarding one of them, I'll bite. What's an otherstuffdoesn'texist argument? Haven't run across that term before and I didn't find it googling. --Bob K31416 (talk) 20:37, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

This is not about "environmentalists" (whoever or whatever they are) and what they want to do. It is also not about what appears in a glossy annual report. This is a real and very significant issue about what Wikimedia "costs" in environmental terms and what could be done to minimise those costs. The effect on the planet can and should be quantified in exactly the same way that conventional finances are quantified and managed. Unless it is quantified it cannot be managed, and if it is not managed then the costs and impacts remain unknown. Environmental offsetting (such as paying for trees to be planted somewhere else in the world) is a total diversion. What any responsible business does is to establish a current baseline for water use, waste production, sustainable purchasing, carbon dioxide generation etc. and set workable targets to manage those downwards. I cannot believe that this not already in operation and I hope that it is simply a question of increasing the transparency around its details. I guess the same approach should be applied to social responsibility and other activities that any socially responsible organization engages in to minimize any adverse social impacts around its work-places.  Velella  Velella Talk   22:33, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Re "This is a real and very significant issue about what Wikimedia "costs" in environmental terms and what could be done to minimise those costs." – How big is the Wikimedia operation at its various locations? I ask because your remarks seem to apply to a large industrial plant. --Bob K31416 (talk) 00:35, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
BTW, the carbon footprint from the Wikimedia locations is quite negligible compared to another source associated with Wikipedia. Can you guess what source that is? --Bob K31416 (talk) 02:22, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
For the microseconds and tiny currents that a Wikimedia server uses to process a particular editor's work and requests, that editor's hardware would burn electricity for an hour or so. --Bob K31416 (talk) 14:49, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Could someone reading this point readers to an appropriate location on the Foundation Blog to post a query regarding an environmental audit, and the current state of sustainable business practices ? Seems like a reasonable question to ask. --Djembayz (talk) 01:40, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

I've raised the issue at meta:User talk:LilaTretikov (WMF)#Environmental Impact Assesment.--Salix alba (talk): 05:20, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
FWIW, Your comment over there looks fine to me. --Bob K31416 (talk) 15:12, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

So do we need a TPP blackout like we had for SOPA?

For the intellectual property provisions anyway. https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2015/10/final-leaked-tpp-text-all-we-feared Ken Arromdee (talk) 05:43, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

I haven't read your link yet - but will do so now. But to state some general principles, I will support action if there is broad community support, if the issues are relevant and important to Wikipedia, and if there is an opportunity to materially change the outcome. Because the TPP is a very wide ranging agreement similar to NAFTA and since it has been negotiated in a multi-lateral way with many nations, I expect that it will be presented to Congress as an "all or nothing" thing - and even if we hate some significant part of it, there may be forces much wider than "intellectual property" which push it through regardless. But I don't know enough yet.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 12:29, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
This would be the same broad community support that didnt exist for the SOPA blackout? Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:34, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
There was overwhelming community support. Please don't repeat myths.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 15:10, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
One of the things that stood out in my mind about the SOPA blackout (which did indeed have overwhelming community support) is the fact that sites like Reddit and I Can Has Cheezburger? were able to go from proposal to decision is a day or two while by the nature of how Wikipedia makes decisions we took a lot longer to decide. One way to get in front of that would be to run an RfC now that gauges community support for publicly opposing some sections of TPP. This also could end up influencing the final TPP that gets submitted; they may very well modify any parts that we as a community oppose. --Guy Macon (talk) 13:03, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

"values and beliefs"

Earlier this morning, I asked a question at the help desk about Wikipedia and Wikimedia's environmental (especially curious about this one) and social responsibility practices and activities as I've never seen anything about this until User:NinjaRobotPirate sent a link to wmf:Answers/Wikimedia Foundation but it is not specific. NinjaRobotPirate suggested I either email or send something here and I'm curious as to what the specifics are. Cheers, SwisterTwister talk 17:07, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia and Wikimedia are here to construct and maintain the sum of all human knowledge, not to do environmentalist work. While encouraging sustainability is not a bad thing, doing so with donor's money would be a misuse of funds. Thus, I would guess (and hope) that the Wikimedia Foundation does not invest any money on these activities. --Jakob (talk) aka Jakec 17:33, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
The WMF occupies several floors of an office building in downtown San Francisco and operates massive computer servers in several locations. Any such venture needs to consider questions of energy efficiency and sustainability. Addressing these issues responsibly is by no means a misuse of donated funds. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 21:54, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
I think it would be a problem for the reputation of Wikipedia as a publication that strives for a neutral point of view, to be an advocate for anything other than Wikipedia. --Bob K31416 (talk) 22:05, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
How is acting responsibly and sensibly violating "neutral point of view"? I think it would be best for everyone that Wiki acts smart with consideration to their actions. There's no malice with that. Take for example if Wiki were to donate to cancer and mental health research and that would only have benefits for everyone not to mention maybe even more information for Wikipedia articles. There's also no malice about caring about important issues such as these. It only makes sense that so many organizations and corporations may not be in the environment industry but still make actions such as Toyota, Ford, Google, Kroger and Yahoo! which have been open about their sustainability practices so why not WMF? SwisterTwister talk 23:14, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
Nice framing job. Going from donating to cancer and mental health research to taking a position on controversial environmental issues, if that's what you're suggesting. --Bob K31416 (talk) 23:48, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
Jim, perhaps I misunderstood the original poster's intent (or perhaps you did?). I am under the impression that he is talking about either spending donor money on unrelated environmental projects or perhaps even doing advocacy within Wikipedia itself. I oppose both, but have no objection if the Foundation just wants to make its offices greener. For what it's worth, I think that it would be a terrible idea for "Wiki" [sic] to donate money to cancer and mental health research. There are already plenty of entities that do that. Wikimedia has its own mission to fulfill, and that mission would be severely diluted if the Foundation were to become a generic charity throwing money at any cause that they deem worthwhile. That way lies serious trouble. --Jakob (talk) aka Jakec 00:43, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
I agree, Jakob. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 01:03, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
No it is that you entirely misunderstood Jakec as I never actually said of donating money to health or anything of the kind and it seems I need to repeat myself in saying I started all this because of unanswered questions regarding WMF sustainability practices. This is exactly why I stay away from discussions because there always seems to be drama. *sigh* SwisterTwister talk 04:13, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
I think it is justifiable for WMF to invest in local, physical sustainability measures, such as solar rooftop power or geothermal cooling systems, or even a larger renewable energy facility situated nearby with a dedicated power line, provided the cost aspects aren't too terrible. Despite the ravages of the deletionists, a big part of WMF's "brand" is preserving knowledge, and if they can say that they have made themselves safe from social, legal, or military disruptions to the power grid (or sudden price increases in electricity), that is a worthy accomplishment. However, I don't think it is worth buying in to the corporate model of paying some company halfway across the world that says it will plant some trees between its parking spaces to offset your carbon emissions. Wnt (talk) 23:15, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
Before this causes any unnecessary heat and drama, I started this because I wanted answers to unclear statements and the closest that I also found is here and here which is simply unclear again. SwisterTwister talk 23:57, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
From those two links is the sentence, "Our task force felt that net neutrality, censorship, copyright, digital divide, and environmentalism were all issues worth considering (with privacy as a subordinate, less strategic concern)." This looks like the kind of tactics used in a congressional bill, of tacking on a topic (in this case environmentalism) that doesn't fit with the others. --Bob K31416 (talk) 00:19, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

I think this is a reasonable question. What monitoring of social and environmental issues is done by the foundation? References on the foundation wiki are scant wmf:RFP/2013_Datacenter mentions "The environmental impact of the facility (cooling efficiency, reclaimed water, etc) will be an important consideration for final site selection." In wmf:Press releases/Wikimedia Selects EvoSwitch June 2009 a Green Data Center was selected for the European servers. I've no idea if its still being used. It looks like one past board member is from a consultancy firm works on social and environmental issues. wmf:Press releases/Ana Toni Announced as New Wikimedia Foundation Board Member

Its high time the WMF produced some kind of publicly available environmental audit. This is certainly a question which may influence some donors and is quite timely in the run up to the Paris talks.--Salix alba (talk): 05:56, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Thank you so much Salix alba for giving constructive, useful and positive feedback, something this thread certainly needs. Your last sentence is exactly what I was thinking. SwisterTwister talk 08:43, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
Indeed. The annual report doesn't tell us anything. This information should be in such a report, because rising electricity costs and carbon taxation represent significant 'downside risks' for the foundation. Wnt (talk) 12:59, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
I looked at the link you gave, annual report, and didn't see where environmentalism info would fit in. Specifically, what would you want to add, and where would you put it? --Bob K31416 (talk) 15:03, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
True... it's not much of a report, really. But there's no real reason not to add a section on carbon balance or environmental impacts generally. Wnt (talk) 15:37, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
If one looks at the Table of Contents of the annual report, a section on environmentalism doesn't seem to be appropriate. From what you seem to be suggesting, the heading of section 5 would be changed to "Your contributions are the foundation of free knowledge and environmentalism". This isn't appropriate because environmentalism isn't one of the purposes of Wikipedia. --Bob K31416 (talk) 16:09, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
@Bob K31416: Sounds like an otherstuffdoesn'texist argument to me. None of the sections were there until someone wrote them. What I know is that a good, proper annual report to stockholders by a big company would include a section disclosing challenges and risks that could reduce the stock value. For Wikipedia, such challenges include this and other things like Google's switchover to summaries reducing click-through; the report should let people know that there is some planning of what to do in such situations, and work being done to reduce the risk. Wnt (talk) 18:40, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
You just seem to making statements of opinion without any rationale. ...and that's just my opinion : ). Regarding one of them, I'll bite. What's an otherstuffdoesn'texist argument? Haven't run across that term before and I didn't find it googling. --Bob K31416 (talk) 20:37, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

This is not about "environmentalists" (whoever or whatever they are) and what they want to do. It is also not about what appears in a glossy annual report. This is a real and very significant issue about what Wikimedia "costs" in environmental terms and what could be done to minimise those costs. The effect on the planet can and should be quantified in exactly the same way that conventional finances are quantified and managed. Unless it is quantified it cannot be managed, and if it is not managed then the costs and impacts remain unknown. Environmental offsetting (such as paying for trees to be planted somewhere else in the world) is a total diversion. What any responsible business does is to establish a current baseline for water use, waste production, sustainable purchasing, carbon dioxide generation etc. and set workable targets to manage those downwards. I cannot believe that this not already in operation and I hope that it is simply a question of increasing the transparency around its details. I guess the same approach should be applied to social responsibility and other activities that any socially responsible organization engages in to minimize any adverse social impacts around its work-places.  Velella  Velella Talk   22:33, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Re "This is a real and very significant issue about what Wikimedia "costs" in environmental terms and what could be done to minimise those costs." – How big is the Wikimedia operation at its various locations? I ask because your remarks seem to apply to a large industrial plant. --Bob K31416 (talk) 00:35, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
BTW, the carbon footprint from the Wikimedia locations is quite negligible compared to another source associated with Wikipedia. Can you guess what source that is? --Bob K31416 (talk) 02:22, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
For the microseconds and tiny currents that a Wikimedia server uses to process a particular editor's work and requests, that editor's hardware would burn electricity for an hour or so. --Bob K31416 (talk) 14:49, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Could someone reading this point readers to an appropriate location on the Foundation Blog to post a query regarding an environmental audit, and the current state of sustainable business practices ? Seems like a reasonable question to ask. --Djembayz (talk) 01:40, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

I've raised the issue at meta:User talk:LilaTretikov (WMF)#Environmental Impact Assesment.--Salix alba (talk): 05:20, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
FWIW, Your comment over there looks fine to me. --Bob K31416 (talk) 15:12, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Again Question

Hi Jimbo Wales, I have a question wherefore Susanna Mkrtchyan becomes Wikipedian of year? --Vadgt (talk) 11:19, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

This is the Wikimedia Foundation blog post.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 13:15, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
It doesn't say that she was named "Wikipedian of the Year", though. It says the name of the winner of that award was not announced. Looie496 (talk) 13:34, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
I want to say that 6AND5 messaged to Susanna Mkrtchyan to resolve conflict in Armenian Wikipedia, but he not answered [4] (if need I can translate this message). And also on Armenian Wikipedia in same text[5]. --Vadgt (talk) 15:05, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

This Friday: Women in Architecture edit-a-thon @ Cambridge, MA

You are invited to join the Women in Architecture edit-a-thon @ Cambridge, MA on October 16! (drop-in any time, 6-9pm)--Pharos (talk) 18:28, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

I wonder if any of them are members of Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth? Raquel Baranow (talk) 18:37, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
If they are, I hope they don't let them have any sharp objects. Crayons would be good. Black Kite (talk) 23:21, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

definitely not going to let Wikipedia become a PR platform

@Jimbo Wales: I noticed that you were interviewed for the Times. The Drum summarizes it as, you are ' “definitely not going to let Wikipedia become a PR platform” which he stated would be “so against all of our values”.' This sounds excellent, but I can't get the Times article itself unless I pay 12 pounds. Any comments here? Smallbones(smalltalk) 15:27, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

To get an answer from Jimbo Wales, please go to our shopping cart and pay a 6 pound fee. Oh, wait... :) --Guy Macon (talk) 15:50, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
That's a very good sentiment, but I would respectfully suggest that Jimbo follow up by urging the WMF to take stronger action than it has to date to ban the practice. I believe that volunteer action in that regard is important, but also a waste of time unless the WMF does more than it has to protect the project's brand identity. Coretheapple (talk) 16:35, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
Using Wikipedia as a PR platform is already covered by the rules. So what do you mean by "stronger action" to prevent it? Etamni | ✉ | ✓  03:21, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
  • More resources for, and action from the Legal department for a start. MER-C 11:01, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Publicizing our rules about WP:NOADS, WP:PAID, WP:COI to the general public. If folks don't know that they are not allowed to buy an article, they'll continue trying, and be prey for the most unethical of paid editors.
  • Letting admins and ArbCom know that they are expected to enforce our rules, or at the very least not interfere with enforcement by others.Smallbones(smalltalk)
The steps outlined above are good for starters. Also I'd suggest that the Foundation's board members and its paid employees act scrupulously to maintain a "cleaner than a hound's tooth" position on COI, lest they be subject to criticism from the usual, albeit laughingly hypocritical sources. Coretheapple (talk) 16:10, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
  • The obvious step would be to make the Bright Line Rule official WMF policy. I believe the board could just vote and pass this - it's really just an extension of the board's policy on not accepting advertisements. In this case, it would just be "what do we do when companies put in ads anyway" and there would have to be some teeth behind the BLR, e.g. lawsuits. Or, if they want to go the route of changing the Terms of Use again, I'll predict that this would pass by 80%-20% again. It really is a simple to understand rule and nobody should worry about whether it will pass. Smallbones(smalltalk) 19:15, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
True, but as I've been saying for some months now, this is fundamentally a brand identity problem, not one that should bother ordinary editors all that much. If the Foundation won't act, what of it? No skin off my rump. I find paid editing annoying, but it is not a life or death thing for me. It is for Wikipedia, but I just volunteer here. Coretheapple (talk) 20:11, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
Remember too that the Bright Line Rule is no the be-all and end-all. There are ways around it. On this very page some months back we have an administrator talk about how he was paid by some guy who was the subject of an article, and got someone else to perform the edits that guy wanted. Voila! No bright line rule violation. Also we have had situations in which paid editors have essentially drafted articles outside of mainspace and gotten friendly editors to post their edits. That received a lot of publicity in BP. Again, it all comes down to brand identity and how the people most affected (Jimbo, the Foundation) feel about such things. If they don't like it, it is within their power to do something about it. The "community" is far too unwieldy and divided on this, as well as far too uninterested in COI issues, to pull the Foundation's chestnuts out of the fire. Coretheapple (talk) 20:19, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
I strongly support the board passing 'bright line rule' as a part of the terms of service. To really get it through, though, I need to be able to demonstrate the support of the community. That's hard, but can be accomplished if we are organized and strong.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 23:10, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
What would it take to convince the board? Presumably there would be a ToU RfC lasting at least a month with a banner directing people there. Nobody wants to have encyclopedia articles with hidden ads in them, so it's pretty obvious how that !voting will go - just like the paid editing ToU change went - 80% in favor of the change. If you want a petition before that (and on top of that!) just let me know how many signatures you think you need, and I'll see what I can do. Smallbones(smalltalk) 01:37, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
What would you change? I'm no fan of advertorial, but I think the ToS on undisclosed COI, plus consensus at WP:COI, plus WP:CSD#G11 are all we need. Of course we sometimes fail to spot the promotional editors, just as we fail to spot vandals and POV-pushers, but they tend to get found out in the end. I am impatient with people who agitate to keep articles started by the subject, but they do at least tend to roll their sleeves up and fix them, because they tend to be long-term Wikipedians not just inclusionists-or-the-sake-of-it. Codifying what constitutes a COI is an obvious attempt to legislate Clue. What about True Believers? Where would they fit? Guy (Help!) 11:20, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
Guy, I don't want to come off as opposing you here, but neither should anyone see g11 speedy as a panacea. Let's look at the last five g11's applied by DGG for example. Tony Angell [6]: failed. Katie Bulmer-Cooke [7]: failed. Manhattan Associates [8]: failed. Circle (company) [9]: failed. Angel Comedy [10]: failed. In no way is this a critique of DGG; I think these were exactly the sorts of cases where g11 should be applied. But there's some disconnect in carrying it out so we either get bogged down in labor-intensive deletion debates or get stuck with crummy articles. And this critique of speedy deletion as a means of handling promotional articles, and this erroneous invocation of inherited notability illustrate the kind of attitude we have to contend with. My feeling is that we have a system-wide breakdown in the ability to handle use of WP as a promotional platform, and our own ossified systems, processes and norms are part of the problem. - Brianhe (talk) 20:55, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
I want to clarify that the 5 articles have failed as speedies but not necessarily as deletions--I think some of them will be deleted at afd, and I've nominated there the ones on Manahattan Associates, Bulmer-cooke, and Angel Comedy. Circle was no-consensus at afd, andI have not yet to decide whether to re-nominate it. Tony Angell was muc improved after I listed it, and I do not think it should now be deleted. It takes only one editor to defeat a speedy. G11 is not avery precisely defined criteria, and I would rarely say that an editor declining a speedy in good faith is doing wrong. We operate by consensus, and the test is afd, I do think there are some problems there, where the promotional nature of many articles is insufficiently realized and the article not get deleted. What is needed is increased awareness, I do however very strongly think the growth of promotionalism is the ain threat to our worthwhile existence as an encyclopedia. I can see a useful encyclopedia with broader or narrower coverage -- with more popular or more scholarly content. I do not thin an n encycopedia repeating what the subjects of articles say for themselves has any value in the world whatsoever. Even if a few npov articles remain, their value would be contaminated and thrown into question. Nor would many volunteers want to provide free work for people collecting the money under the guise of being able to write articles, but being themselves unable to write one acceptably. I came here to provide free work,but for for people who want to learn how to dog ood free work here themselves., not for those who left to their own devices would destroy us. DGG ( talk ) 06:58, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
@Jimbo Wales: Putting Wikipedia's reputation and brand identity in the hands of "the community" (meaning whoever turns out for a discussion) strikes me as an unsound policy, but that's not my call. Good luck with it. Coretheapple (talk) 18:28, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

What would change if BLR becomes part of the Terms of Use?

I agree with Guy that “the ToS on undisclosed COI, plus consensus at WP:COI, plus WP:CSD#G11 are all we need”, or at least it should be all we need to stop paid advocates from editing articles on the companies that pay them. Unfortunately, it seems that some people don’t agree.

For example we have ArbCom saying last February “6) The Committee has no mandate to sanction editors for paid editing” [11]

We have lots of articles at AFC that are clearly written by employees to promote their employers. [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] Note that I’m not accusing the article submitters of avoiding our rules in bad faith. Rather, I’m saying that we need to let them know in no uncertain terms, before they submit the articles, that these types of articles are against our rules.

At AfD we have articles such as Caidin Film Company, Horseshoe Bossier City, Shermco Industries UNETSHA. Why weren’t these companies told loud and clear that we don’t give away free advertising? Why does it take years to get these articles deleted?

A simple clear policy embedded in the ToU would stop all of this, if it is well publicized and backed up by the WMF legal department.

Let the WMF write the prospective ToU change, but the simplest, clearest statement that I’ve seen is the bright line rule. Smallbones(smalltalk) 18:57, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

There are many reasons to dislike me or be skeptical of me etc. I have many failings. But I take great pride in a peculiar ability to sometimes just say what is right, in a simple way. So, thank you for appreciating it.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 21:40, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
You keep talking about backup from the WMF legal department, but TOU are rarely enforceable againts third parties in a civil court. WMF Legal are never going to actively sue a company for employing someone to edit wikipedia against the TOU. It would be laughed out. It would also open them up to counter-suits for all the times Wikipedia has had blatantly skewed/NPOV/inaccurate information. Wikipedia defends itself against Corps who accuse it of misinformation/bias by pointing out info is all sourced elsewhere and that any real inaccurate info is removed quickly. The corp's defense for engaging in paid editing would be that it is required to in order to defend its reputation against Wikipedia's anonymous editors who repeatedly smear it and affect its business. The WMF's money pile would be quickly eaten up in legal costs once that gets going. Given that the WMF has been completely unwilling to do anything about serial death threats, abuse etc from a *known private individual* it has the name and address of and can provide cast iron evidence in relation to, and you honestly expect them to take on big business in a case they would likely lose? Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:12, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
Your argument is that the US legal system is incapable of supporting an ad-free community on the internet. If advertisers are counting on that, then there should be no complaints when they get themselves in trouble. Smallbones(smalltalk) 14:48, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
By the logic employed by "Only in Death," there could be no meaningful TOU because it could not be "enforced in court." First of all, that's questionable at best. Companies prohibit all kinds of misconduct in their TOUs, and act against transgressors when it becomes a serious problem. Only on Wikipedia does obvious stuff like the BLR not get put in for all kinds of dubious excuses. However, if I understand JzG right, it is possible that there already is a sufficient community consensus so that the Foundation could go ahead and insert that rather obvious provision into the TOU, and feel it has "community support," whatever that means. Of course the Foundation could put up all kinds of bureaucratic obstacles and require an RfC or whatever before it improves its TOU. But as I keep saying, if it does, why should any of us care? Are we really hurt if the project's brand name and reputation are hurt? Hell no! Coretheapple (talk) 15:26, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
With a few exceptions that is the case. TOU for websites (and software in general) essentially allow the company (in this case the WMF) a reason to restrict access (ban) someone under their own rules. Its not enforceable through a civil court. A TOU is also not enforceable against a third party who has not actually agreed to it or violated it. A corporation who engages in hiring someone to edit wikipedia has not agreed to the TOU as they are neither accessing nor editing wikipedia directly. The paid editor is, however as the WMF is not interested in requiring registration to edit, an IP address is rarely sufficient to take someone to court as it alone is not considered enough to identify someone. See previous cases RE media torrents where people have been sent pay up or else letters. There is sufficient reason (and consensus) to put the provision in the TOU, as the TOU is the basis on which people can be banned, but thinking the WMF is going to take any legal action over it is ridiculous. Only in death does duty end (talk) 16:27, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
I agree that the WMF has been, is, and probably will forever be timid and lacking in deterrent credibility on this issue. It is interesting that there seems to be a consensus, at least among the people here, that there is sufficient community consensus to support adding the BLR to the TOU. Jimbo Wales, please note that. Coretheapple (talk) 19:29, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
And yet we sue the NSA which, while important, is not our fight. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 01:53, 11 October 2015 (UTC).
That's right. Perhaps there are major donors (the true constituency of any nonprofit) who desired it. Clearly donors are not pressing for action on the Wikipedia-as-advertising issue. Coretheapple (talk) 16:16, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
Of course not, where would they get their free advertising then? Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:47, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
You are just libeling our donors, who donate on average something like $15 each. The folks who put in their "free ads", taking advantage of a non-profit organization, are just thieves. We've never had a policy allowing free ads, but they just steal them. Smallbones(smalltalk) 22:00, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
The logical failure you make here is the equation of paid COI editing with advertising. Certainly some paid COI editors churn out promotional fluff which is little more than glorified advertising. But what of a company staffer correcting information about a chief executive or providing a sourced update of sales figures or fixing the spelling of the name of a product? You would damn all such constructive editing to the same treatment. The community has no stomach for that. Carrite (talk) 05:55, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Is there such a thing as beating a dead straw man? No one really cares about such minor things as what you mention. Those things do not come to our attention. Using such edge cases to obstruct the genuine, major, problem of paid editors a) creating articles on non-notable subjects b) paid editors whitewashing existing articles and c) paid editors creating poor articles on minor subjects which suck up volunteer time because they pass the very low bar GNG and NCORP have become does no service to the encyclopedia. Keeping that kind of crap under control is a massive time/effort sink and someone with a financial incentive will always be willing to put in more time/effort than a volunteer. Wikipedia is not a friggin business directory nor is it a promo site for third rate bands nor a place for those with an inflated sense of self-importance to have a biography. If a subject needs a paid-editor to get an article then it should not have an article.

There are, of course, the usual exceptions for GLAMs etc. - those people paid to put non-promotional knowledge into Wikipedia but then again for every librarian I see dumping articles on 19th century literature into Wikipedia I see thousands of paid editors writing cruft and spam. (Well lots anyway - I have never run across a spammy librarian) JbhTalk 14:11, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

@Carrite:
You tell me that
“The logical failure you make here is the equation of paid COI editing with advertising”.
The logical failure that you (Carrite) make is not knowing the definition of the word “advertising.” You seem to think that it necessarily involves puffery, blatant promotion, and misleading information. Let’s clear this up right now. We have prohibitions against advertising, promotion, public relations, and marketing, all prohibited by WP:NOT. It would help if you knew what those things are.
There shouldn’t be any confusion about the definition of the word “advertising,” dictionary.com gives us:
“Advertising
noun
1. the act or practice of calling public attention to one's product, service, need, etc., especially by paid announcements in newspapers and magazines, over radio or television, on billboards, etc.:
to get more customers by advertising.”
So let’s start with a very simple example. A farmer posts the following notice on one of his fenceposts
“Hay for sale. Inquire at McDonald’s farm”
This is absolutely an advertisement. He is calling the public’s attention to one of his products. If he put the same words in a newspaper, it would be called a classified ad. If he painted the words on the side of a barn, or on a specially constructed board, it would be called a billboard ad. If he put it on the radio or tv, it would be a broadcast ad. If he pays somebody to put it on Wikipedia (or does it himself) it is still an ad.
If that definition is too broad for you, consider that we also prohibit promotion (definition:”something devised to publicize or advertise a product, cause, institution, etc., as a brochure, free sample, poster, television or radio commercial, or personal appearance). Advertising is a subset of promotion, so even if you think McDonald’s ad is a “borderline ad”, it is certainly promotion, and is prohibited. Public relations (definition: ”the actions of a corporation, store, government, individual, etc., in promoting goodwill between itself and the public, the community, employees, customers, etc.”) is also a subset of promotion. PR is also prohibited on Wikipedia.
If those definitions are too broad for you, consider marketing (definition: “the total of activities involved in the transfer of goods from the producer or seller to the consumer or buyer, including advertising, shipping, storing, and selling”). Advertising, PR, and promotion are all subsets of marketing. Marketing is also prohibited on Wikipedia.
Frankly, I think that almost anything that a business would want to pay people to do on Wikipedia is marketing and is prohibited. The example of somebody being paid to correct the middle initial of the CEO is essentially mythical, it doesn’t happen (maybe 1 in 1,000,000 COI edits). If it did happen, nobody would even notice, and if they did notice, nobody would complain.
So people who insert ads into Wikipedia, unless they don’t know our rules, are just stealing this “service” from a non-profit. IMHO they are equivalent to those people who go around after a natural disaster collecting money for the victims - claiming to represent a charity - and then keep the money for themselves.
The editor above who claims that the employers of paid editors can not be held legally responsible for the actions of their employees is just as wrong as Carrite. Of course employers can be held responsible for the actions of their employees taken during the course of business (see Castillo v. Case Farms of Ohio for one example).
It’s time for the apologists for paid editors wake up and smell the coffee. There are no logical arguments to allow the usual type of advertising on Wikipedia.
Smallbones(smalltalk) 18:37, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
A big part of the problem is a vacuum of leadership from WMF. For starters, I'd like to see a wall of shame where we and the world get to see what WMF Legal is doing. Why aren't the lawyer letters like this posted in a prominent gallery? I had to dig hard to just find this letter and I'd already seen it once before. The last COI blog post from WMF [17] is dated 2013, for heaven's sake. Second, more resources for tools to help fight COI. There's a page of suggestions at User:Doc James/Paid editing. As it stands nobody knows how expansive they can be with their thinking because there's been no support from WMF to even discuss possibilities. Third, WMF should be rallying their massive public support for more law enforcement in the U.S., and publicize the results. Was there any investigation of Orangemoody actors? Is there a RICO or wire fraud angle that the FBI is interested in? What's the last FTC or SEC engagement in illegal promotion of companies for pre-IPO or post-IPO stock pumping? Is this even something WMF cares about? — Brianhe (talk) 16:37, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
Those are good ideas, but another part of the problem is timidity on the part of the WMF, as well as, perhaps, an oversolicitous attitude to sheer drivel of the kind expounded by Carrite above. Not having attended their meetings it's hard to sense what kind of dynamics are at work, but one can guess on the basis of how little it has done. Coretheapple (talk) 17:38, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
The fact is — and something of which the tiny circle of anti-paid-editing fanatics (and we do know all three of them by name) seem oblivious — is that much or most WP editing by paid COI editors happens under the radar because it is in the nature of uncontroversial corrections to content. At the same time, the worst and most objectionable paid COI editing takes place on behalf of generally small companies, software entities, book writers, public speakers, consultants, lawyers, etc. who seek to advertise their wares in contradiction of site notability and NPOV requirements. There is strong community consensus that the former is okay, assuming declaration of connection is made. There is strong community consensus that the latter is very much not okay, whether or not declaration is made. But that's not enough for the fanatic fringe, who want to do an end run around the community via WMF fiat. Spoiler alert: WMF does not manage content, the community does. Carrite (talk) 17:19, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
If indeed much of the paid editing out there is benign stuff that is going to happen regardless of what the WMF does, why do you care if the WMF prohibits paid editing? They'll still go ahead and do all that good stuff, all that positive editing. However, not having a prohibition leaves the project naked to the assault of what even you agree are the bad guys. Maybe they should be naked to the bad guys, given their timidity and generally lily-livered reaction to paid editing, but that is a separate issue. As for your spoiler alert, I'll spoil it for you: the Foundation has every right to prohibit anything it wishes, and does. Coretheapple (talk) 19:49, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
@Carrite: I very much hope that you include me in the anti category. Anyway would you look at this edit history and tell me if you support or defend what they are doing? This is (part of) what I was referring to above with my comment on stock pumping. If you think it's bad, what can we change to make it harder for operators like this? — Brianhe (talk) 23:15, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
I oppose what they are doing, it is spam for a pretty clearly non-notable enterprise. The way we get rid of such things, if they are not unambiguous advertising and thus subject to speedy deletion, is through PROD or AfD. Best regards, —Tim /// Carrite (talk) 23:51, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
Your lack of suggestions on what to change is unfortunate. For many of us the status quo is completely broken and unacceptable. Brianhe (talk) 06:23, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
I just gave you suggestions on how we deal with such things. What do you want me to do, consign the content creator to the gates of hell for his sins? Last I checked, if you banned a single purpose editor to the moon, he could be up and running with a new account tomorrow with extremely modest technical savvy. You want to get rid of POV-laden paid editing for commercial firms? Talk to WMF about banning IP editing and requiring some sort of stringent requirement for account registration and implementation of new technical enforcement mechanisms to catch sock puppets. And why is CU data disposed of after three months? Got an answer for that??? So there are some more suggestions for you. You can have a 93 page TOU document that effectively makes every person with a COI into a bad actor, but that won't do a single thing about the problem you complain about, POV editing, which is absolutely inevitable. As long as there is Wikipedia, there will be people trying to use WP as an advertising tool. We can either address that situation rationally or hysterically. Carrite (talk) 09:39, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
Re: "Is there a RICO or wire fraud angle that the FBI is interested in?" — Umm, let me help you with that: NO. (Sheesh!) Carrite (talk) 09:44, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
@Carrite:
You write "the tiny circle of anti-paid-editing fanatics (and we do know all three of them by name)"
So you're now resorting to name calling! It's just not a rational argument.
80% of !voters supported the ToU change requiring paid editors to declare, in the largest RfC in history. I'm not asking the WMF for an "end run" I'm asking that they allow the 80% to !vote again to get paid editors off the article pages.
As far as "much or most WP editing by paid COI editors happens under the radar because it is in the nature of uncontroversial corrections to content. .... There is strong community consensus that (this type) is okay, assuming declaration of connection is made."
Can you name a dozen paid editors who, in the last year, have made a declaration according to the ToU rules, including employer, client, and affiliation? They don't do it because they know that their advertising will be reverted or deleted. We're not dealing with editors who edit in good faith here - they know the rules, but just refuse to follow them, just like your friend the banned editor. Why do we have to put up with that nonsense? Smallbones(smalltalk) 04:11, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
You make it sound like paid COI editors can be identified (without violating outing rules) and banned (with simple IP editing, ease of registration, and ineffective tools and protocols for identifying multiple accounts). It's silly. So much posturing is what it is. Carrite (talk) 04:21, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
It's actually quite easy to identify who is responsible for placing an ad in Wikipedia and who did the actual placement. For example, if you see advertising in the XYZ Hotel article, it's a cinch that XYZ Hotel is responsible for placing it. An ad always points somewhere. Who actually placed the ad? The guy who put in all the fluff - just check the history. Smallbones(smalltalk) 14:01, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
Now you're talking about a crackdown on POV editing for commercial firms, which is quite different from the hysterical phrasing "banning paid editing." POV editing is already banned and single purpose POV editors are already shown the door. What exactly do you think you need that you don't already have? Carrite (talk) 09:31, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
Believe me, there hundreds of PR editors in WP who know how to edit without drawing attention to themselves. They are smart enough not to admit to what they're doing, they stay completely away from the drama boards and this page, and quietly go about their jobs of promoting a specific organization, person, or idea. The media should know that whenever a WP or WMF rep declares that WP cannot be used for PR, as mechanisms are in place to prevent it, it's all smoke and mirrors. Cla68 (talk) 06:21, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
There you have it, Jimmy. The rationale for letting advertisements into Wikipedia is "we can get away with it." Let's not let them get away with it. Smallbones(smalltalk) 14:01, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
If you strip away the bullshit, that's pretty much the argument of the paid editing apologists: "It will happen anyway so don't prohibit it." So does everything that's not good, by the way, up to and including murder. And to answer whatsisname, yes I do hope he means me among the three fanatics of whom he speaks. Coretheapple (talk) 15:58, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
Cla68, you're kidding right? Why don't you come have a look at WP:COIN and re-evaluate? There have been 36 new cases since the beginning of the month. One case (yourstory.com spamming) has over 35 named accounts associated. I find it insulting to say the efforts to combat this stuff are smoke and mirrors. – Brianhe (talk) 20:32, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
You all are doing what needs to be done on that noticeboard. There is one case that causes all the penny-ante commercial POV claptrap to pale, and that is the organized effort to sanitize the content about the Kazakh regime. No snarky joke about the need for a Wikimedian of the Year to step up and come to the rescue — this is a real problem of state censorship of En-WP content. 10:06, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
This is a case that belongs at Arbcom yesterday, by the way. Carrite (talk) 10:10, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
Every time somebody brings up paid editing, one of the same two or three accounts or 2001-series IPs comes around and yells "Kazakhstan!" "Forget about paid editing, that's penny ante. Kazakhstan! Kazakhstan! Kazakhstan!" Or we get "the Foundation is corrupt! That's worse! Forget about paid editing!" Have you been to any Israeli-Palestine articles lately? They're worse, an ongoing battleground, a mess. And they've already had several doses of arbcom. There is POV editing by the truckload elsewhere too. In fact, off the top of my head I can think of about a dozen things going on on Wikipedia that are worse than paid editing. All belong at Arbcom yesterday or the day before. All great excuses to do nothing about paid editing, right, Carrite?
All this being said, I would importune my colleagues to stop raising the issue here, because it's a waste of time. A few of us fanatics oppose paid editing. Jimbo comes in with some rather useless verbal support. The usual two or three accounts or 2001-series IPs say the same stuff and yell about Kazakhstan. This anti-paid editing fanatic used to get all energized about paid editing but I no longer am. I had a kind of essay on my user page and I removed it months ago. It is a question of branding and reputation and really Jimbo's problem and the problem of those who make a living at this (Jimbo, other paid staff, and that 2001-series IP, whose posts here we really need to stop policing as it is not our problem.) Coretheapple (talk) 12:35, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
Carrite is definitely trying to distract readers from his inability to defend paid editing. "Look - over there - it's a Kazakstan!" Smallbones(smalltalk) 12:52, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
I can understand being an anti-paid editing fanatic. We think it's a bad idea, and look, let's be frank, speaking for myself, I have a certain amount of jealousy toward people who are on the gravy train, such as that administrator who found a way to make money by taking bucks from the subject of an article and persuading somebody else to do the editing. Such admirable entrepreneurial instincts I do not have, and I confess to some jealousy. But I have to say that I am in awe of people who themselves are unpaid, derive no benefit from the project, yet rigorously advance the cause of paid editors as a matter of principle, doing their bidding whenever the subjects come up. Such people are truly saints! Voluntarily advancing commercial interests because they believe in them. Perhaps these people volunteer at their local McDonald's, flipping burgers out of principle? Coretheapple (talk) 13:16, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Kim Davis

I'd be interested in your view as to whether Kim Davis (county clerk) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) should be a biography, an article on the same-sex marriage kerfuffle, or two articles, one on each. I closed an RfC as supporting a single article rather than multiple, and I don't think it should be a biography, I agree with the former, but I could be wrong in both views. Guy (Help!) 17:53, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

This seems like a pretty clear case of BLP1E, in which case we normally don't have an article on the person, but on the event. We have additional considerations here in that she's taken a highly controversial position that makes it more likely that she will be subjected to abuse and harassment in her Wikipedia entry, which we would have to clean up. The thing I always ask myself is this: are we likely to have enough information on this person to write an actual high quality biography. If not, then we shouldn't have a biography at all.
I'd additionally question the wisdom of having an article on this kerfuffle at all as it seems very short-lived and relatively unimportant. But if we are to have anything, then I suppose that's the best option.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 18:57, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
Thank you. Guy (Help!) 19:02, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
Sooooo, just clicked and see that there's still a biography. Where was the discussion and how did you close it? I perhaps have misunderstood the situation here.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 21:45, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
Talk:Kim_Davis_(county_clerk)#RfC:_Two_articles_or_one.3F_.28Or_three.3F.29 Liz Read! Talk! 22:10, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
Jimbo, I'm sorry, but I think you're underestimating how big this story has gotten in the U.S. There is a huge body of news about her meeting with the Pope, for example. Some people are actually criticizing the Pope because he met with her.[18] That's truly a case of the tail wagging the dog, sure, but in terms of notability, this BLP1E has flown the coop. Wnt (talk) 22:44, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
That's probably right. She'll be a Joe the Plumber-like figure in the current campaign cycle. Carrite (talk) 22:56, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
I personally doubt this is going to turn into a Joe the Plumber scenario outside of, maybe, the Republican primaries when candidates are trying too court the most Conservative of their constituents. During the national elections I doubt the Republican candidate is going to harp on SSM too much. It's too well supported by the majority of the US and that's not a good strategy to get the centrist vote. They'll already have the vote of those who are against SSM mainly by default. I'm of the opinion that she's currently not notable outside of the controversy itself and my bet is it's going to stay that way. Capeo (talk) 15:08, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
It's still very much a BLP1E. It's an ongoing press circus, but "meeting the Pope" is not independently notable. Consider it this way - she met with the Pope with a group of people - without the original incident, this would be absolutely unnoticed. She remains notable for only one thing. Remember - adding more details and more ramifications and so on about the event doesn't give us any more information about her for the purpose of a biography.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 09:22, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
Hi, so Jimbo has the full picture... There are currently two open discussions on this topic (RM, AfD), each slowly but surely winding to a procedural close. Without doubt, there's a consensus to move the article about the person to the article about the controversy. There remains a minor discussion of whether the person is notable for a separate article, which seems more and more unlikely, but there seems no doubt that the controversy, which is currently at the biography, will be moved elsewhere. This wasn't helped, btw, by a snow close of keep for the article about the person. -- zzuuzz (talk) 09:27, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
There is no realistic chance of it being deleted, so snow keep is correct; there needs to be one article, per the RfC, the remaining question is what title that article should have. Jimbo agrees that it should be clearly identified as an article on the controversy not a biography, which is also my view having read the comments at the RfC I closed. So that leaves two obvious options: one includes her name in the title, the other does not. Obviously any dab page for Kim Davis would link ot this article, we're not going to try to pretend that she doesn't exist or airbrush her out of the picture, all we're going to do is what we always do, which is to try to cover the facts without joining in the bunfight over shaming of people who do stupid things. Guy (Help!) 10:33, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
I would invite you to move the article over the current controversy article forthwith, as it was originally split from the biography - a little out of process, but that's probably not important. It can almost be deleted under G7. We can then set about fine-tuning the title, and discovering whether a separate biography can be written/deleted. -- zzuuzz (talk) 10:43, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
I had more or less come to the same conclusion, I opened a thread on ANI to talk this through with fellow admins. Guy (Help!) 10:48, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Right now the title "Kim Davis (county clerk)" describes a pure biography, with nothing about the controversy, even though there is a huge consensus that she doesn't deserve it. This ongoing controversy (international coverage, court cases, legal decisions, jailing, political/social/religious hero) is her only claim to fame. The article's current scope and content are properly weighted to emphasize the controversy, including her sole and central role, which all RS confirm. A new title must accurately reflect that content. It doesn't do that now.

We just need a change of title (by moving to the redirect) so it actually describes the content, while preserving the history. Nothing else need be done! Kim Davis same-sex marriage license controversy fits the bill perfectly. A move would solve ALL the problems and everyone gets their wish: (1) those who want a biography will find some biographical content, and (2) those who want an event article will find a whole lot of content documenting that. Can we just settle this all by moving it to the proper title, the one which accurately describes the actual content? Please? -- BullRangifer (talk) 21:57, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

It seems like the net effect of all this wrangling is that we faithfully preserve the reader's impression that Kim Davis is a lone kook on an idiosyncratic crusade, with no place for mention of two other clerks in Kentucky and a whole bunch in some other state that continue to refuse to issue licenses also. It seems to have become a pillar around here that anything about an event the media doesn't stress, we shouldn't say. I wish Wikipedia would place a lower priority on preserving reader's impressions. Wnt (talk) 15:56, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
Wnt, the two other clerks are mentioned in the article with the extremely minimal weight they deserve. Why? Because they are not activists, their actions have hardly been noticed by the media, and the ACLU has stated that they are not targets for legal action. That's why their stories disappear down a small worm hole. The ACLU chose to focus on Kim Davis, and her obsessive form of activism (even "terrorizing" her fellow clerks) made it inevitable that the ACLU and major international media would focus on her. Her notability is no accident, but it's still solely because of this controversy, and she doesn't deserve a pure biography separate from the controversy. One article is enough for this. This is not a case where WP:SPINOFF allows us to remove the controversy to another article, leaving her with a pure biography. If you used Google Alerts, as I do for many of the subjects I edit, you'd realize that Kim Davis and her controversy have become the daily focus of major international media.
Anyone is very welcome to make a generic article about the subject of "Same-sex marriage license controversies". The subject is notable, so the content can include non-notable individuals like those other clerks. You will be able to find some mention of other individuals and make a decent article, but putting them all together, their collective splash on the national and international RS won't approach what's happened with Kim Davis. That article would then mention Kim Davis as the most notable objector, and devote a whole section to her, with a "main" hatnote pointing to her article, where the full story would reside, all per summary style.
We must remember that her "one event" is a cascading series of actions, events, and legal actions, with her at the center, some of which will have lasting effects. Her lawyers can be thanked for some of that, but politicians, religious leaders, and other homophobic activists also have a large share of the responsibility.
Our job here is to document the sum total of human knowledge (which includes lies, conspiracy theories, quackery, crackpots, etc.) with roughly the same weight found in RS, and to transmit that same weight as an impression to readers. That's what we do here. NPOV forbids editors from letting their own POV influence how much weight they give a subject. They must reproduce the weight and spirit found in RS, without any censorship. We must not give a subject any more or less weight than RS give it. -- BullRangifer (talk) 16:58, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
Actualyl the question that needs to be settled is the final title for the merged articles. Which, IMO, should not include the name of Kim Davis, for the reasons set out above: BLP1E and the fact that there are other clerks who are either very lucky or letting Davis "take one for the team". Guy (Help!) 08:03, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
Definitely should not have its current title, and I can't understand why it hasn't been changed already. Coretheapple (talk) 15:14, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
There's already a title for the merged article, which may or may not change after the RM is concluded (I assume that we still respect consensus). As pointed out numerous times, BLP1E doesn't apply in this case because the subject fails to meet all three necessary criteria. Numerous examples were also given of similar Wikipedia biographies in which the subjects suddenly became very notable. Although BullRangifer and I disagree on the title, his assessment otherwise is well-grounded in policy and practice.- MrX 15:28, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
MrX, while I also disagree with BullRangifer's suggested title, I'm curious as to what your preferred title is and why -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 16:45, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
Somedifferentstuff: I will refer you to my detailed comments on the article talk page for a more detailed answer, but in short, my preferred title is 'Kim Davis'. I created this article as a biography because it is obvious that the subject is notable for being at the center of a historic series of events of national (and now international) significance. I never intended the scope to include political reactions, detailed legal commentary, and insignificant other examples of civil disobedience in Kentucky. The appropriateness of the title is evident in how sources report on the subject and in the fact that the page is viewed roughly every 9 seconds. Readers would not be served by giving the article an obscure title like 'Miller vs. Davis' or 'Rowan County Same-Sex Marriage License Controversy'. Our guidelines say to use natural, recognizable, and concise titles, which is what we currently have. Again, my detailed arguments and rebuttals to other arguments are on the article talk page and archives. I think you will see that I've given considerable thought to this in the context of our policies and guidelines, rather than just pointing vaguely to policy shortcuts. - MrX 17:57, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
MrX, using the title Kim Davis for the current article is a clear violation of WP:PSEUDO -- How do you square that? -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 18:09, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
I've answered that on the article talk pages as well. First, you can't "violate" an essay. Second, even if one does accept the essay as useful advice, the subject still easily passes the general test as I have detailed on the article talk page. - MrX 18:35, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
MrX wrote above: "I created this article as a biography because it is obvious that the subject is notable for being at the center of a historic series of events of national (and now international) significance." No, you didn't create it as a biography. You keep changing sides; first it's a biography, and then it's an event. No, it's both, and the title needs to reflect that fact.
As I wrote to you elsewhere, you are forgetting that you created the article, with this content: "Kim Davis is a Rowan County, Kentucky clerk noted for defying the US Supreme Court ruling requiring that she issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples following the Obergefell v. Hodges case.", supported by two refs, and a YouTube video. Then you added more of the same types of refs. You clearly created a bio/event article. It immediately becomes apparent that you knew what made her notable ("noted for defying"). You need to get your story straight, because you keep changing sides. You are the one who started the article as a bio/controversy, not a pure bio. Now you want to keep it as a pure biography, but that idea has been rejected several times. She not notable apart from the controversy, so that makes no sense. Both AfDs made it plain that a pure biography would not have survived, and they approved the article with the current content and scope, a biography/event article with the main weight on the controversy.
After her notability for those actions was apparent because events kept rolling in that direction, and the beginnings of the article were in place, there were some editors who sought to go back in history to find RS of a purely biographical character, and then add that content to the existing article. (It was with this edit that the very first personal (biographical) content was added.) To some degree that's okay, but that does not erase the reason she is notable. An attempt to then remove the parts documenting that reason and leave a pure biography were unsuccessful, since, as someone only notable for the controversy, what would be left would not survive an AfD. The content documenting why the person became notable must remain in the article. -- BullRangifer (talk) 18:58, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
You're making a lot of assumptions about my intentions based (I guess) on the types of sources I used and how I worded the lead. I've been consistent in asserting that the article is a biography from the beginning. I don't know what a "pure biography" is, other than an attempt at a semantic argument.- MrX 19:14, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Guy, BLP1E does not apply in this case (see point 3). The controversy isn't over, it's very notable, and her involvement is about as central as can be imagined (like the role of Jesus in the Crucifixion of Jesus). She will always be noted as the historical pioneering person who took the most notable stand on the issue of same-sex marriage licenses. Any others were not notable. No other clerks have made any significant splash in RS for a number of reasons, not least of which is that the ACLU chose to target her, and they stated they will not target the others for prosecution.

Two other very significant reasons are that the other two clerks in Kentucky have (1) not had a single case of same-sex couples applying for licenses, so (2) they haven't even denied such licenses. Their roles, stories, and mention in RS simply disappear down a very tiny hole of insignificance. We do briefly mention them, but that's it. There is literally nothing more to say. In a generic article they would be mentioned among many others who object, but not among those who actually refused to issue licenses (are there any others?). They would only get a couple sentences each.

We're dealing with a bio/event article (we have lots of them), and WP:COMMONNAME and RS dictate that her name is so intimately connected with the whole series of events that her name should be included in the title of the ONE article we need to solve all this mess. BUT, Coretheapple is right, the current title is totally inadequate and does not accurately describe the actual scope and content of the article. It must do that. That's why it shouldn't just mention Davis, but should also include the controversy. The title Kim Davis same-sex marriage license controversy solves ALL the problems perfectly. Otherwise, as noted above, anyone is very welcome to also make a generic article about the subject of "Same-sex marriage license controversies", but it won't replace or reduce this one. -- BullRangifer (talk) 17:40, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

BullRangifer, doing a news search shows that Davis has largely fallen out of the current news cycle [19] -- as I've explained previously, this story isn't dependent on Davis per se, it's roots are centered on the power of a county clerk to deny people marriage licenses -- How do you intend to overcome the large opposition [20] to your suggested title??? -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 18:20, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
RS and COMMONNAME say otherwise, as does your search. She's still in the news, and if all this fuss wasn't occurring, I'd be adding more good content I have collected.
Otherwise, the later fate of an individual or event does not affect the original reasons for the creation of an article. The article has been created and it has survived two AfDs, and we don't use CRYSTALBALL to judge whether we should keep it or not. The future can only determine what MORE content it gets. -- BullRangifer (talk) 19:04, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
@BullRangifer:, you are stating opinion as fact. You think BLP1E doesn't apply, I think it does. So does Jimbo. Which means, at the very least, that it is something on which reasonable people may differ. The grounds on which it supposedly doesn't apply, as stated to date, include her "having achieved elected office". Our long list of articles at Category:County clerks shows how this is an obvious qualification for notability. Or would, if we had biographies of any significant number of other county clerks. Guy (Help!) 14:40, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
Okay, let's discuss this, because it's rather crucial. I thought the winning !voters in the previous RfCs and AfDs explained clearly why BLP1E's point 3 does not apply to Davis. Here it is: "If the event is not significant or the individual's role was either not substantial or not well documented." Both factors do not apply to her: (1) The event (a whole series of events) is very notable and (2) her role is as central as the role of Jesus in the Crucifixion of Jesus. That title indicates the idea: the person and event are both in the title. That's what we need.
If she later becomes more notable for other things, then a split creating a pure biography (keeping the current title, could be justified, but the current article content would still remain, with a title which includes her and the controversy. There is no controversy about this particular issue apart from her. The other clerks have not denied any applicants. -- BullRangifer (talk) 15:30, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
Pinging Jimbo Wales, since you believe he shares your opinion. I'd like to hear his input. -- BullRangifer (talk) 16:00, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
I think you're missing the point. Attempts to legislate clue do not override the very obvious fact that she is known only for this one thing, and without this one thing there would definitely not be an article on her. Coverage of her is always in the context of the event, coverage of the event rarely fails to mention her but there are others involved. That's what we mean by a person known only for one event, in which case we write about the event not the person, as Jimmy said above. I think Davis is the victim of cynical exploitation by fundamentalist whackos, but that's not the point, the point is that as a person we are setting about immortalising her for one piece of idiocy that she will hopefully one day want to forget. It's about Wikipedia not being evil. Guy (Help!) 15:41, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Broaden as Kentucky statewide page

I think it would be better as part of "Kentucky same-sex marriage license controversies" because a major aspect of the Kentucky law was to impeach a Kentucky probate judge who does not follow the laws, but could not be "fired" for refusal to perform office duties. One popular refrain about her not issuing marriage licenses was: "Either do your job or resign" (like a vegan cook who refuses to cook meat dishes at a general restaurant), and again, a major point is the difficulty in Kentucky to get a probate judge to follow the laws, or remove them from office, much more important than the antics of whoever the judge was who refused to issue marriage licenses (and there have been several across the U.S.). -Wikid77 (talk) 17:23, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

That article has already been AfDed for good reason. You show you aren't familiar with the long-running controversy over this article. If that article were resurrected, it would need a different scope and content. -- BullRangifer (talk) 17:41, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
An early procedural close is certainly not the same as delete the article for good reason... especially when the person (JzG) who closed the AfD offered this title as an option in the subsequent/continuing move discussion. It's like the early keep of the article about the woman doesn't mean we must keep her biography. One needs to look beyond the narrow bureaucracy of the closures in these discussions, and towards joining together this prolonged clusterfuck. -- zzuuzz (talk) 17:59, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
The closing statement of that AfD inappropriately introduced the idea that "... the content of this, Kim Davis (county clerk) and Miller v. Davis need to be merged to a single article and an appropriate title chosen". In fact, only one person out of sixteen who commented in the original RfC actually suggested a merge to Miller v. Davis. I agree this is a "prolonged clusterfuck", but probably not for the same reason that you do.- MrX 18:25, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
I accept that Miller v. Davis came somewhere out of leftfield, but even that RfC left open a decision for two articles, so again, I suggest no one goes by the short title of these closures. -- zzuuzz (talk) 18:28, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
Although the process was broken from the get-go, it's worth noting that Miller v. Davis is the current favorite title/merge [21] -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 18:39, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
Not at all. That subject is a classic legal stand alone article. It is properly summarized in this article. -- BullRangifer (talk) 19:06, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
zzuuzz, yes, one could say "even that RfC left open a decision for two articles", but that would be this one (with a better title) and Miller v. Davis. -- BullRangifer (talk) 19:07, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Salient points

We need to get focused, so here's a summary of where we are now:

  1. The article's scope and content (a biography with weight on the controversy) has survived two AfDs. That must not change.
  2. A pure biography article has been rejected multiple times. She is not notable apart from the controversy.
  3. A pure event article has also been rejected (the AfD for the "Kentucky...." article was closed "merge"). The controversy does not exist anywhere apart from Kim Davis. She is central to it.
  4. The current title describes a pure biography (a rejected idea), and does not accurately describe the scope and content. Our titles must should be accurate.
  5. The scope and content are not up for discussion, only the title, and it must change.

My opinion on the ideal solution is well-known: Kim Davis same-sex marriage license controversy. If you don't agree with any of the points above, please explain. -- BullRangifer (talk) 19:19, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Your "ideal solution" has been knocked down over, and over, and over again [22] -- Your continued repetition doesn't change anything -- The AfD you mentioned declared that there should only be 1 article, and the subsequent RfC (link above) has clearly shown that a large number of editors do not support what you are trying to do here. Please respect and take into consideration other points of view. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 19:45, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
That's your opinion. As you are an editor who has repeatedly shown that they have not carefully studied or been involved in ALL the relevant articles, their histories, their discussions, and their multiple RfDs and AfDs, I really don't rate your opinion very highly. Competence is required, and your comments on aspects for which you have obviously not performed due diligence speaks volumes. RfCs and AfDs welcome fresh eyes, but we expect those eyes to have performed due diligence, but you, and many of those whose opinions you value, have not done that. Therefore their comments are worse than useless and actually disruptive. They muddy the waters and create confusion. It's best to only speak about that of which you know, and be silent about matters you have not thoroughly examined. Otherwise a difference of opinion is perfectly fine. -- BullRangifer (talk) 20:06, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
It is extremely disruptive to give your opinion and then hat the exchange (which I've now removed and you should know better) -- I am well aware of what is taking place at the Kim Davis (county clerk) article. Your continued persistence against a wide swathe of outside opinion doesn't help anyone. It's okay that you disagree, but trying to silence opposition is not only disrespectful, but disruptive as well. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 21:01, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
That word "must". Nope. Frankly, the article needs new eyes. It's dominated by people obsessed with the person Kim Davis, and as Jimbo says, she simply is nto important (though I think she would dearly love to be, and is being cynically exploited as a useful idiot by some very unpleasant people). Guy (Help!) 21:23, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
Okay, I have stricken "must" and written "should" be accurate. -- BullRangifer (talk) 04:43, 16 October 2015 (UTC)


Arbcom

Hi Jimbo, until recently I was active in editing our article on Electronic cigarette which has various issues, and at my request Arbcom opened a case about it here on 4th August. An extended timescale was agreed so the workshop phase of the case ended on 25th August. Six weeks have now passed during which nobody has edited the proposed decision phase at all. There were three drafting arbitrators, all of whom have become inactive and they were replaced by a fourth drafting arbitrator who promised to post a proposed decision by 3rd October and then went inactive. Arbcom are now unresponsive to discussions on the case talk page. Clerks are politely expressing their frustration now too, and what I'd like is for Arbcom to admit that they don't have capacity to deal with the case and close it (so that I can bring it to another venue such as AN/I). Advice or suggestions would be really welcome at this point. All the best—S Marshall T/C 20:59, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

This ArbCom — some of whom were elected based on expressions that the process was too slow and in need of reform — has been the slowest and least transparent of any I have seen since coming to WP in 2008. They left Lightbreather hanging in the wind for about two months before effectively doing nothing to punish her off-wiki harasser. They're still in the process of an evidence-free slow motion botch job in the clarification request relating to Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ). These are only two instances of a series. My recommendation, if they don't ban you to the moon in this case (I haven't been following it, I have no idea if you are a saint or a sinner), is that you vote out each and every one — 100% — of incumbents who run for re-election. And then do the same thing next year. A complete cleaning of house is needed, ASAP. Carrite (talk) 00:53, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
(edit conflict) The proposed decision is being worked on currently, and will be posted when it is ready. I have asked that this be communicated on the case page by the arbitrator now leading this, and I apologise that this has not been done. I also apologise again for the length of time this case has been open, but unfortunately arbitrators have real lives that they must sometimes prioritise above Wikipedia. Thryduulf (talk) 00:57, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
Same song, 9th verse. What exactly has been done to expedite the case process? Have evidence and debate windows been shortened? Have hard deadlines for decisions been set? Have subcommittees been created to divide the tasks and make sure than 14 people aren't simultaneously buried in intractable cases? Has any effort been made for public discussion by Arbs in the name of transparency? Has time been allowed for community processes to work themselves through before acceptance of cases and clarification motions? Does anyone even care that ArbCom has become a dysfunctional institution? Carrite (talk) 01:03, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
  • What exactly has been done to expedite the case process? The main time factor is normally the time taken to read and evaluate all the evidence and other comment presented and work out what remedies are appropriate to resolve the issues identified - and what is presented publicly is not 100% of what we have to read - for the "Kww and The Rambling Man" case for example I have 163 emails tagged as related to that and an unknown number that required reading but did not merit saving; the Lightbreather case generated several times that many. Other than not hearing and/or not evaluating all the evidence, what can be done to expedite this? Voting on a case also depends on arbitrators having the time to review the evidence and proposals, what can be done to increase this time?
  • Have evidence and debate windows been shortened? Varying timescales (longer and shorter) have been tried for cases this year, it has not made any significant impact.
  • Have hard deadlines for decisions been set? They have been rejected as pointless - there is always a reason for a deadline being missed and a hard deadline would not altar this.
  • Have subcommittees been created to divide the tasks and make sure than 14 people aren't simultaneously buried in intractable cases? Subcommittees have been discussed several times, in public and internally, and have failed to reach consensus on every occasion.
  • Has any effort been made for public discussion by Arbs in the name of transparency? Almost all the discussions that take place in private are held in private for a reason. Most often that reason is one or more of, (a) the discussion involves non-public mataterial and so cannot be held in public; (b) it would not be practical for the discussion to be held in public (it would be more complicated, take longer, and/or result in confusion) - often because we would have to spend time dealing with comments that were not helpful for the goal of resolving the dispute; (c) the discussion is not relevant to anyone other than arbs and/or clerks; or (d) it is an appeal where internal discussion by arbitrators is the only remaining option.
  • Has time been allowed for community processes to work themselves through before acceptance of cases and clarification motions? Yes - we only accept cases where all community processes have been tried and have failed, or where it is clear that attempting further community processes would be pointless. For clarification requests, we only spend any significant time on them when it is clear that there is something that that we need to clarify. Note though that we have no control over when requests are brought to us and we cannot prevent premature requests being made. Thryduulf (talk) 02:30, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Here's a new idea. Why don't we make ArbCom like jury duty? If you're an administrator holding tools, you become part of the jury pool, with 12 (or 6) people selected to hash out each case before being dismissed. The case acceptance policy can be via community RFC. I'll bet cases wouldn't take 4 months if they were being run by 6 conscripts instead of a stolid crew of electees. Carrite (talk) 01:09, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Good idea, but why just use administrators? If you look at ANI and AN, most of them are struggling to be very responsive. Open it up to all editors with over 4,000 edits. Cla68 (talk) 01:20, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
Reading through all of the statements on Evidence pages, on Workshop pages and their associate talk pages, plus checking out hundreds of diffs and days/weeks of email debate....I think that, like jury duty, most editors would try to get a pass out of serving. Liz Read! Talk! 01:35, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
And a significant fraction of those who want the job would be totally unsuited for it. --NeilN talk to me 01:38, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
I'll gladly serve--the moment I understand how the whole setup works. Neil, who'd want to serve, given the amount of crap you have to read and the thanks you get at the end? Drmies (talk) 02:37, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
those who want to resolve disputes, those with an axe to grind, those with an agenda, those who love drama, those who (naively or otherwise) think it doesn't involve much work and/or brings lots of rewards, those who want to give something back to Wikipedia. Only some of them should be allowed anywhere near arbitration. Thryduulf (talk) 02:49, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
{{ec]} For obvious reasons it would also only be open to those who are willing and able to comply with the Foundation's m:Access to nonpublic information policy, including accepting the m:Confidentiality agreement for nonpublic information. It can in theory take up to a couple of weeks for all the paperwork to be completed (it depends on the method used to identify to the Foundation and the workload of those receiving it; it took about 5 days in my case iirc as I didn't have immediate access to a scanner and timezones meant that emails were not acted upon immediately they were sent). Another thing to consider, is that the more people have access to non-public information, discussion archives, etc. the greater chance there is of confidentiality being breached (either intentionally or accidentally). Thryduulf (talk) 02:49, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Don't get me wrong: I'm not saying Arbcom is easy. You didn't see me volunteering for it, and you won't. But, those that did volunteer in the knowledge of what they were getting into, should either follow through or throw in the towel and allow someone else to be elected to replace them. To be clear, there's plenty of activity from Arbcom. They're happily voting to accept new cases, for example. The inactivity is on the case page. If there are secret discussions taking place in a secret space, then great, but I see no evidence of that, nobody's said that to us and the talk page is being completely ignored. I have to embarrass a response out of an arbitrator by posting on User talk:Jimbo Wales. Dispute resolution is fundamentally about communication skills, folks.—S Marshall T/C 07:49, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

My issue at the moment is that I have plenty of time in 5-10 minute blocks which allows for things like this, clarification requests, etc, but is not at all useful for digesting and interpreting the evidence in cases - I don't know about other arbs but I really need blocks of at least 1-2 hours at a time before I can do that. Thryduulf (talk) 09:35, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
So you're saying you did have time to engage in conversation about cases?—S Marshall T/C 11:06, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
What do you mean by "convesation about cases"? Thryduulf (talk) 21:16, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
I mean that you did have time to read talk page posts and make brief replies over the period in question. It was within your powers to speak to the parties. After an arbitrator had set expectations for a proposed decision by 3rd October, but then failed to meet them, someone from Arbcom did have a few minutes to post on the case talk page and talk to the parties.—S Marshall T/C 21:57, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:The_Committee. And while (as Thryduulf is well aware) I think it's appropriate to question individual committee decisions, overall it's obviously a huge times sink crap job and not being hasty is a virtue, not a fault. It would help somewhat if they spin off the CU/OS appointment stuff into community election. The current Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Catflap08_and_Hijiri88 case is ridiculous; there's no great encyclopedic principles at stake, just a couple disruptive editors the greater community has failed to deal and thereby dumped onto the committee. NE Ent 10:07, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

It's not the Committee's job to deal with "great encyclopedic principles", rather the mundane "disruptive editors the greater community has failed to deal".
Not glamorous, not fun and not easy.
But of course the committee has been given, or taken, other powers, making it, as Thryduulf says, attractive to The Wrong People, as well as the right ones. And there is no oversight of the committee - Quis custodiet indeed. WP:TNT anyone?
All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 14:34, 13 October 2015 (UTC).
  • I understand the frustration, but I do wonder: how can we expect a group of elected volunteers to make rapid work of what are, by definition, intractable disputes? Guy (Help!) 14:37, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
I would expect that people who voluntarily elect to run for a position that is known to have tremendous obligations would do so knowing the tremendous obligations and if they lack the time to fully commit to fulfilling those tremendous obligations they do not run for the position. That should be a new mandatory question for all ArbCom candidates: Are you able and willing to commit X hours of work every week of your term to fulfill the extensive duties of an ArbCom member? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:29, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
Yes I am able to commit X hours, what I'm not able to do at the moment is commit X consecutive hours. Regardless, when I stood as a candidate I would have answered "yes, as far as I can forsee" to either phrasing. Thryduulf (talk) 21:16, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
  • I don't expect them to make rapid work of them, necessarily. All I really expect is for Arbcom to give realistic timescales, communicate with us when they're unable to make progress, and meet the commitments they set for themselves.—S Marshall T/C 16:25, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

If the ArbCom conducted its deliberations on-wiki, we could all see for ourselves how the cases were progressing and how much work the arbitrators were actually putting into them. Everyking (talk) 18:01, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Absolutely. Previous email list leaks have shown that the list is not used solely for "stuff which can't be disclosed". Of course current Arbs may protest that "that was then and this is now" -- but virtually no one who was on the leaked mailing list came out well.
All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 18:56, 13 October 2015 (UTC).
Bad decisions and slow performance are not mutually exclusive. That has been, all too often, what we have been getting. It really is pretty simple. Arbcom needs to split itself in half and not have the full committee take every case. Arbcom needs to shorten deadlines for evidence. Arbcom needs to require all but the most sensitive evidence be presented in public. Arbcom needs to require of itself that all but the most sensitive evidence be deliberated in public. Arbcom needs to set hard-and-fast deadlines for decisions to be put to a vote and for a clock to run on the voting process. Carrite (talk) 17:35, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

I have no particular objections myself to the current situation, or to the perceived delays in resolution. Some of these cases can involve a disgusting amount of time and effort expenditure. Reading all the damn evidence submitted, trying to determine what fragment of that actually is evidence, and against who, and how much evidence on the misconduct of this that or the other editor is shown by it, trying to see what sort of resolution is possible, and on, and on, and on.... The number of people willing to subject themselves to trying to do that reasonably is very small, and the number of them who could be reasonably trusted as competent enough to not screw it up badly even smaller. Having said all that, of course, if there were some way to get some of the people who have proven to be effective at that position, and I will not name that New York Boy by name, to keep doing that job through coercion, I'd probably support it if I could avoid getting my real name revealed and thus avoid the probable charges of holding him against his will which would appear as soon as he managed to break out. John Carter (talk) 21:34, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

I accept that complex cases take time, serious time, big chunks of time. I understand that this is entirely voluntary. I'd like to thank the arbitrators for doing a difficult task. I prefer a good decision to a fast one. Thanks. Cloudjpk (talk) 00:34, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

As would we all. But Arbitrators historically (perhaps like everyone) are quite willing to grant themselves time extensions, very reluctant to do so for parties. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 13:55, 14 October 2015 (UTC).
  • Arbcom needs to handle itself like American governmental institutions do under open meeting laws. Deliberate in open unless specific information requires the equivalent of an "executive session" from which the public is barred (email for this). Instead we have a star chamber which few, if any, Wikipedians trust to do the right thing for the right reasons. If you Arbs feel like you are getting swamped with hundreds of emails, stop making email the primary means of communication and presentation of evidence. You have done this to yourselves. Carrite (talk) 17:30, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
I have said before I will happily vote for anyone who runs for Arbcom on a basis of reforming the process, and a statement they will not participate in mailing list discussions (except where absolutely necessary for privacy issues). How about you run next time? Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:50, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Give me the money to hire council, a communications director, a researcher, and part time pay for all of us and then you might see cases happen on schedule. --In actu (Guerillero) | My Talk 18:25, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Actually, split the committee in half, stop taking so many marginal cases, limit evidence to public postings except in very carefully defined sensitive situations, shorten the evidence periods, and actually follow through once deadlines are posted. That's really not too much to ask and won't run WMF $1 million a year... Arbcom has worked for years before, just not so much now. Carrite (talk) 04:25, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
The evidence phases are definitely not too long. Presenting evidence takes its time. And not all of those involved have a lot of free time. Case acceptance is based on policy. While the first point allows to dismiss marginal cases(as if there were lots of marginal cases accepted), the others don't.--Müdigkeit (talk) 14:59, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
There is one evidence phase, one week, that's fine. Then there is an entire week in which there is a "workshop" which is basically a spin session by participants and their friends, trying to steer the outcome. This can be either made concurrent with the evidence week or abandoned altogether, since the self-serving BS on those pages is routinely ignored by Arbcom anyway. That's a 50% time savings right there. Carrite (talk) 10:14, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
Is it ignored? Especially the behaviour of the parties on the workshop can, in my opinion, help to evaluate the behaviour of those, and in addition it may occasionally give the arbcom a good idea for sanctions.--Müdigkeit (talk) 10:44, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Alright, here's what's wrong with TPP

Wikisource has original text related to this article:

It is taking a while for the text to leak -- apparently Congress is now supposed to pass the treaty before the public is allowed to see what it is! -- but this source describes what TPP will do for Wikipedia:

Among the provisions in the chapter (which may or may not be the most recent version) are rules that say that each country in the agreement has the authority to compel anyone accused of violating intellectual property law to provide “relevant information [...] that the infringer or alleged infringer possesses or controls” as provided for in that country’s own laws.
The rules also state that every country has the authority to immediately give the name and address of anyone importing detained goods to whoever owns the intellectual property.
That information can be very broad, too: “Such information may include information regarding any person involved in any aspect of the infringement or alleged infringement,” the document continues, “and regarding the means of production or the channels of distribution of the infringing or allegedly infringing goods or services, including the identification of third persons alleged to be involved in the production and distribution of such goods or services and of their channels of distribution.”

Now here's an example of what I take that to mean. Suppose someone edited the Lee Kwan Yew with an unflattering quote. Well, under this treaty, Yew's representative could say the quote is a copyright infringement. Even if it were only five words, what court would rule against him? Note that the treaty allows safe harbor for scholarship, but so far as I know none of the non rights holder rights are actually mandatory on a country. So Wikipedia would be legally bound, in the U.S., to turn over everything it knew about that editor to the Singaporeans based on their process. If the editor happened to be from that country, or a country willing to do a favor, then next time he had to go back to renew a visa, he'd be in very deep trouble.

So the result is simple: he doesn't do that quote; he doesn't do editing unless it is favorable, knowing that even if he is in the U.S. or any other country caught up in this web of treaties (of which TPP is only one) he has no safe haven. And the same is true for these other countries and their various big shots. And so the editors who are honest in the game will mostly be the foreigners limited to English-language sources, in a state of ongoing conflict with people who should know the most about the topic who they'll deride as shills. The result might be that the Americans ride on guns blazing and enforce an imperial neutrality on the topic that is in line with whatever the U.S. media is saying. Or it might be that the article is tenderly obsequious to the foreign government. But what it won't be is a neutral article written by a broad pool of volunteers who feel safe to write freely and neutrally. Wnt (talk) 17:16, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

AIUI, from what you have posted, if the US passed a law enabling them to require the information, they would be permitted to pass that information to Singapore. This effectively says nothing.
All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 18:59, 13 October 2015 (UTC).
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2015/10/final-leaked-tpp-text-all-we-feared --Guy Macon (talk) 19:31, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
TPP - The Biggest Threat to the Internet You've Probably Never Heard Of
Alright, you never know the truth until you read the primary source. Unless the primary source is in legalese, in which case you still are taking your chances. Unfortunately, I was trying to get data through a hotspot that was apparently censoring Wikileaks, or something... anyway, I found the original text here. The problem is, I'm not quite clear on what "without prejudice" actually means, or whether demanding a judicial system has the authority to turn over information actually means prohibiting any laws that would prevent them from turning over information, etc. Wikileaks has a lot of expert commentary here, but I don't think any of it touches on this.
In any case, whether I'm right or wrong, we need the WMF lawyers to read this over now if we are going to have an impact. If we wait until the bill is passed and they're allowed to read an official version, what can they advise us to do about it? Wnt (talk) 21:07, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
The EFF summary is probably pretty good, they employ more lawyers than Eric Corbett has featured articles. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 13:57, 14 October 2015 (UTC).
@Rich Farmbrough:Great suggestion, I've added a video from the EFF, above. — Cirt (talk) 03:23, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Jimmy, this does not look good

Wikisource has original text related to this article:

Lots of good info at What Is the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement (TPP)? by the Electronic Frontier Foundation. This looks like it's got quite a lot of problems that pertain directly to both the Internet and Wikipedia.

Per the EFF primer: "Leaked draft texts of the agreement show that the IP chapter would have extensive negative ramifications for users’ freedom of expression, right to privacy and due process, and hinder peoples' abilities to innovate."

— Cirt (talk) 01:27, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

It's a smart trick. Law enforcers that what to make a name for themselves start out by coming down very heavy with their proposals, so that when John & Jane Doe protest, they only have to back off a little to get their own way (they can then call it negotiation). Therefore, we should not be complacent and hope everything works out for the best.--Aspro (talk) 23:07, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, Aspro, agreed. — Cirt (talk) 21:46, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Jpeg and DWM

This article covers some early thoughts of the JPEG committee about putting DRM into Jpegs. (Don't you hate committees?) All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 00:30, 16 October 2015 (UTC).

Wikipedia has already gone down the wrong path on this. What we should do is strip all metadata from every file and add it as human-readable annotation to the file page. Instead, there are Commons voters every day claiming that images should be deleted because they have no metadata! Yeah, in theory an image with no metadata might be copied off a web site ... but it might also be uploaded by someone like myself who doesn't want sinister tracking dreck in a file.
The rate things are going, I'm guessing WMF would be more likely to make the DRM mandatory, perhaps telling themselves some feel-good story about how that helps preserve attribution of the image or something. People in power just seem to love Orwell, no matter who they are. Wnt (talk) 14:33, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
Wow, that rant is just so wrong on so many levels that it is very difficult to know where to even begin. It's false, and you've been around here for long enough to know all the reasons why it's false.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 14:57, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
I hope you're right, I honestly do. Wnt (talk) 17:53, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
But what do you think of Commons:Commons:Watermarks, which argues that invisible watermarks shouldn't be removed and that removing EXIF data to text is illegal in Germany, etc? And that's without a set of treaties hanging over everyone's heads proclaiming the divine right of DRM. Wnt (talk) 18:01, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
Metadata is good. If anything we should do the exact opposite of what you propose: modify jpeg files to include the information on the Wikipedia page as metadata. That way when the file is downloaded the information about its origin and properties will come with it. (I'm also in favor of displaying the EXIF metadata as text on the Wikipedia page, but definitely not of removing the EXIF data from the file.) Looie496 (talk) 12:03, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
Exactly. Metadata is not DRM. Different issues altogether.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 15:08, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
  • @Looie496: (ec) I disagree with this, mostly because I feel that metadata is something done to people, not for them. It seems very rare for users to have ready access to the data -- which is the very reason you suggest making it available in text form. If the metadata had been set up with the OS or browsers to be easily readable by ordinary users, there would be no such need. What metadata is really about is tripping up people who take disapproved photographs. Of course, the usual excuses for universal surveillance like child pornographers can be trotted out, and such cases do exist; but such professionals tend to learn what not to do. Whereas the casual user who comes here to upload a few photos from a war zone or officially disproved protest in an unfree country (and how many free ones are left?) may not be aware that a camera body serial number, GPS data, or data about when and how the photo was edited may be available to whoever scrutinizes the image.
  • While Jimmy Wales may understandably be appalled by the suggestion that the WMF would put shackles on CC-licensed work - something the license, to be sure, doesn't even allow - the implementation of a suggestion like yours could have exactly that effect if courts like the German one cited in the link above are taken to mean that users don't feel free to strip out the metadata. Now you can casually suggest adding this metadata as if it doesn't matter, because there are no laws or decisions against adding copyright information to photos. But the situation could be altogether different for the person taking it out. And so while you might not see a proposal like that as "adding mandatory DRM to all Commons images", that may be exactly what it amounts to when it is time for someone to use them. Wnt (talk) 15:17, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
Rare for users to have ready access to the data? Are you not aware that in Windows all you have to do is right-click on a jpeg image and select Properties? Pretty much every modern system makes it easy to view EXIF metadata. Looie496 (talk) 17:23, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
@Looie496: I'm not sure how the Windows Properties/Details tab would appear in Comparison of metadata editors, but discussions like [23] give me the impression it would not compare all that well. (If you would, I'd appreciate it if you can give us a clue in that article!) My general impression has tended to be that whatever editor you're using, there's always some kind of metadata it's not tracking (because metadata is something done to you, not for you) but I don't honestly know enough about it. Wnt (talk) 18:01, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
Also, not to engage in an appeal to authority but just to offer a data point: Richard Stallman once responded to my concerns (years ago) that the GNU FDL requirement that full text of that license be transmitted along with every image by suggesting that the license could be embedded in the metadata of the image.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 17:26, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
Sigh. I respect Stallman, but that kind of hidden and infectious spammage is, among other things, no way to cut Wikipedia's carbon emissions. When we stop using the fiber optic cables for communication and co-opt them as a sort of ritual prayer wheel to the copyright (or anti-copyright) gods, we are truly writing a dark age onto the golden. Wnt (talk) 18:06, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
FWIW if we actually look at the actually CC Licence it includes the line "You must include a copy of, or the Uniform Resource Identifier (URI) for, this License with every copy of the Work You Distribute or Publicly Perform." so less onerous than the GFDL. It does not say it needs to be embedded and just using the file description page seems to be enough.--Salix alba (talk): 21:41, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 14 October 2015

Biographical Index of the Middle Ages

Two things:

  1. The requested page move here was rejected. I had no strong feelings, but on balance felt that 'John Dun Scotus' was more appropriate, as that is how we see Scotus's name in the title of articles in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Companion to the Middle Ages and many others. The problem was that the other people voting were clearly not specialists. An IP comments "He's better known as "Duns Scotus" – on what basis? user:Mutt Lunker writes "John Duns Scotus is a lesser-used amalgam of the two" again on what basis? I had asked some academic colleagues to participate, but none of them did. One wrote to me privately "I've never been that thrilled with Wikipedia even though there are some good things on it. The complete levelling of the notion of expertise makes no sense to me; thus, Scotus's alleged premature burial gets to be a fact right along with individuating difference." Right.
  2. Connected with this, a colleague just drew my attention to this excellent work. A Biographical Index of the Middle Ages that contains "short biographical information on approx. 95,000 persons from Europe and the Middle East who shaped the cultural development and the religious life during one thousand years". That's a great resource, the problem is that it costs $1,175.00. It's the weird academic business model again. The less demand for the product, the more it costs. Only an economist could explain that. The author is unlikely to have received any payment. Now Wikipedia relies ultimately on sources like these, once, after a long time, they become public domain. Why can't Wikipedia build on its crowd sourcing model to produce a similar work? But then we come back to point 1 above. Scholars generally refuse to participate in Wikipedia, witness my colleague's reaction. "The complete levelling of the notion of expertise makes no sense to me". Someone is now bound to mention 'Nupedia'. I reply, Wikipedia has nothing like Biographical Index of the Middle Ages, moreover it depends ultimately on such publications for reliable sources. Why is it not possible to develop a mixed model where specialist volunteers can work in parallel with non-specialists, or with them in some more controlled way than at present?

Peter Damian (talk) 09:14, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Peter, there was actually an interesting moment in one of the presentations at WikiCon that was buried in the torrent of verbiage that might get you thinking. The argument was made that rather than fruitlessly trying to get scholars and academic subject-experts to write, it might be far more productive to get them to critique. To sit down and (in person, by email, by Skype, whatever) go line by line over what is good and bad, right and wrong, in one or a series of articles on their "topic" and then to have the actual changes made by a Wikipedian who knows the site and the software. No soiling of hands, very easy means of contribution, and a mediative barrier between expertise and the sometimes rough and rowdy and rude community. Think outside the box. best, —Tim /// Carrite (talk) 13:50, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
See my point 1 above. I had asked a number of colleagues simply to comment, not to write anything. Peter Damian (talk) 14:11, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
The consensus model doesn't scale down to small discussions where a few people are basically talking out of their ass. The closer should have disregarded the !votes made without reference to evidence. Gamaliel (talk) 18:45, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
Hmm but isn't Wikipedia just a very large collection of such small discussions? Peter Damian (talk) 20:14, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
I saw Peter's contribution to the Scotus discussion, found it interesting and, assuming he is indeed an academic specialising in the subject, which I'm perfectly willing to believe, potentially persuasive regarding the discussion (it is not of course a "vote"). However the post was very equivocal, stating prominently that he had "no strong feelings" and that the nomination was "fussing around on details" and that "it hardly matters". As the only rigorous support(ish) comment, it was sufficiently lukewarm that can you blame myself and the other opposing participants (one of whom is also a declared history academic) to not feel sufficiently moved to withdraw or qualify our opposition; likewise the closing admin? My post was in response to the lame "no reason not to" nomination and I probably should have listed the various modern, mainstream, non-specialist and possibly less-notable-than-yours texts that form my experience in regard to the topic but I'm open to persuasion and you didn't seem at all inclined to persuade me/us. What's more, if you regard the article as a mess, I'd encourage you to tackle it, and your cryptic remark about spotting "a remarkable piece of vandalism" without specifying what it was and asking us to note that you "never correct crude vandalism" for some reason was less than helpful regarding the issue being located and addressed. Mutt Lunker (talk) 23:20, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
"I just noticed a remarkable piece of vandalism, still uncorrected. Please note I never correct crude vandalism" is the quote from Mr Damian (italics in the original). If the reason was lack of time and interest, preferring to focus on other tasks, that could be marginally acceptable, I guess, although not very Wikipedian, since we're talking about taking a moment to correct "crude vandalism" which is really pretty much incumbent on us if we happen to run into it.
But that's not the reason. It has something to do with head games, not sure of the point, maybe something along the lines of "the Wikipedia is a bad thing, since anyone can write anything in it, and deliberately leaving examples of this lying about helps prove my point", which is close enough to a breaching experiment to make no difference IMO. At any rate, TL;DR: don't feed the trolls. Herostratus (talk) 16:44, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
As I said, no strong feelings. The crux of it was that I couldn't persuade two people I emailed, one of whom has written a book about Scotus, the other of whom is a noted expert, to contribute to the debate. And no, I don't correct crude vandalism. Peter Damian (talk) 18:05, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
That seems extremely petty to essentially say 'hey there is vandalism here but you are to ignorant to see it and I will not do anything about it' In fact I can not think of one productive reason anyone would do that. If you are not going to fix it do not mention it. Do not make it an Easter-egg hunt for others. See meta:Don't be a jerk.

If anyone needs to check something in Biographical Index of the Middle Ages ping me, I have a copy. JbhTalk 19:45, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Amazon to take legal action against sockpuppets

In the Sunday Times this morning, report about how Amazon plans to sue people who write fake reviews. According to the report:

  • They will force them to pay 'treble' damages and legal fees
  • They will use the courts to force sockpuppets to hand over details of their clients
  • Abuse will be identified via the payment systems. "Just follow the money" says Yair Cohen, a lawyer specialising in internet law.

Peter Damian (talk) 10:06, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

That's very interesting.Here's the link. Seems that Amazon was targeted by a paid editing mill. How ridiculous to sue. Sounds like they've got a bunch of paid editing fanatics over there. Don't they realize Amazon has more important problems! I understand that unpaid reviewers from Kazakhstan skew many reviews. Coretheapple (talk) 13:31, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
Is trivialising the cover up of human rights abuses in Kazakhstan really necessary, when advocating for a tougher stance on paid editing? Brustopher (talk) 22:57, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
Yes. Coretheapple (talk) 14:05, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
I'm shocked by how flippantly you admit to trivialising the torture of prisoners, press censorship and the killing of protesters. Please try to show a little empathy and common human decency. Consider that some users may have at times felt the dangerous consequences of government tyranny and consider you scum as a result of it. If you feel that making light of tyranny and injustice is required in the fight against corporate shills then you are a truly twisted person. You ought to be ashamed of yourself Brustopher (talk) 14:59, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
I'll make a note of it. The complaint department is closed at the moment. That's what we get for outsourcing important functions to Kazakhstan. Coretheapple (talk) 15:03, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
Wow. 56 *pounds* for writing shill book reviews, and doing it so sloppily that they didn't even have to start a new account once per 450 reviews? That's something close to $50,000 to just write stupid little snippets about books nobody heard of in a transparently obvious fashion. I obviously don't know a thing about how to make money by writing. I wonder what getting a best-selling video game featured at the top of the Main Page is worth? Wnt (talk) 16:33, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

The 12 pound fee for the Sunday Times stops me from reading the whole article, but here's the Bloomberg and Guardian pieces.

If Amazon can sue John Does for ruining their reputation, I'd think that the WMF could do the same thing, especially when some of our paid editors engage in racketeering and extortion. What's stopping us? Smallbones(smalltalk) 16:54, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Pinging @GeoffBrigham (WMF): just to make sure he knows about the case. Smallbones(smalltalk) 17:18, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

{redact per BANREVERT}
The usual banned editor - who was banned about 7 years ago for paid editing. He made a point of identifying himself by editing the article about his business a hour before editing here. I've reverted that edit, but please leave this comment in to show his extreme hypocrisy. Smallbones(smalltalk) 20:07, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
Why did you feel the need to revert a broken link back into the article exactly? Brustopher (talk) 22:33, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
Wiki-insanity it must be.--TMCk (talk) 22:39, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
Observe All Rules (OAR) is one of the pillars of Wikipedia. It says, "if a rule damages the encyclopedia, be sure to follow it." Or something like that. Carrite (talk) 05:38, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
Please read WP:BANREVERT. It says that anybody can revert a banned editor and they do not need to state a reason. They result of this is that a banned editors edits won't stay in the encyclopedia. Of course some misguided person (e.g. User:Brustopher) might come along a say something like "allowing a banned editor to update the link to his own press release improves the encyclopedia" but I would say that this violates WP:NOTPROMOTION. Fortunately, the reference is not needed in any case, the referenced fact is also referenced in the following (non-PR) ref. Please don't reinsert PR placed there by a banned editor. Smallbones(smalltalk) 22:53, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
You reverted to a broken "PR" link and now you're making up an excuse.--TMCk (talk) 23:08, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
Maybe it wasn't such a good idea to draw attention to your bad edit?--TMCk (talk) 23:10, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
I'm aware of WP:BANREVERT. I just don't understand people who adhere to a sort of BANREVERT dogmatism. Just because you can do something doesn't mean you should. I remember a recent case, where this same banned editor openly reverted a load of vandalism he'd previously added into articles. One user actually thought it would be a wise idea to revert the vandalism back into the articles! While you later came to the conclusion that the material shouldn't be there in the first place, it clearly wasn't what you thought when you reverted the link fix. If it was you would have removed the reference at the time. Brustopher (talk) 10:29, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
If you are accusing me of putting vandalism back into articles, you are wrong. I am accusing you of enabling a banned user. You want him to be able to update his links to his press releases. Why? Truth, justice, and the Wikipedia way? Smallbones(smalltalk) 17:31, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
Apologies for my vague wording. I was not trying to accuse you of being a vandal. I was just referring to a rather extreme example of BANREVERT dogmatism that happened a few months ago, where the battle against a banned editor was placed above article quality. As it stands I'm glad to know that you genuinely believed the fixing of the dead link somehow reduced the quality of the article, and were not just blindly reverting. I do however, consider it inappropriate that you've reverted all his comments on this talk page except for the one that you believe makes him look bad and hypocritical. As such I have reverted that comment. As for your last question, I think it's important to block this editor whenever his socks are discovered. He is a banned after all and shouldn't just be allowed to roam around the site. But once he's made an unambiguous improvement to an article, I think it's absurd to revert it just to punish him or something. Brustopher (talk) 23:30, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
@Smallbones: The WMF's role should never be to help private parties go after and prosecute editors for writing the wrong thing. The WMF's role could be to help make racketeering and extortion impossible, by fighting back the arbitrary and political aspect of deletion, by working to develop convenient tools to open the process to pools of randomly selected volunteers to reduce the role of the self-selected career voters.
Allowing companies to sue posters for "damaging their reputation" by speaking is extremely dangerous. Who damages a company's reputation? If a rater who doesn't read the book can be punished, why not someone who posts to a Playboy forum and tells people where to find the best nudes, or people who tell jokes that aren't funny on Reddit? Allowing companies to financially punish every Terms and Conditions violation (if not more) would make the Internet too dangerous to use at all; freedom of speech would be nothing but an ugly joke. Wnt (talk) 18:57, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
I'm sorry but I think you completely missed the point of what I was trying to say. I don't think that the WMF should help private companies sue folks who disparage them here (or at least I've never considered the matter). What I am trying to say is that the WMF should sue paid editors *and* the businesses who pay them for damaging Wikipedia's reputation by putting in advertisements here. Readers should be able to trust that our articles are not written by the subjects of the article (the companies written about). Smallbones(smalltalk) 20:07, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

I think this article is of interest to the discussion:

  • I created a fake business and bought it an amazing online reputation" by Kashmir Hill, September 15, 2015: "Yelp was the only company that caught us, hiding both of the reviews I bought behind their “not recommended” click wall and not counting them in F.A.K.E.’s rating. It has software that screens out suspicious reviews, not including them in a company’s star-rating. If they see too many of them, they will penalize a business’s page, putting a “consumer alert” on the profile for 90 days warning visitors that they think the business is buying fake reviews. People on Fiverr who were selling reviews would often say “No Yelp” in their descriptions, saying it was hard to make those “stick.”"

--Atlasowa (talk) 19:41, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Re Amazon: Amazon Mechanical Turk gives businesses access to an on-demand, scalable workforce, i.a. to Curate and Create Content: "The community of Workers on Mechanical Turk can write, edit, and curate original content to help you jumpstart your site experience so that visitors see a relevant and interesting website. Example Tasks: * Summarize content or write abstracts of third-party articles. * Write articles about specific subjects based on web research." I wonder how Amazon makes sure that they are not procuring fake reviews ("content creation") themselves? --Atlasowa (talk) 19:53, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Amazon have a much bigger problem. I reported a large number of fake reviews of Kevin Trudeau's books, a bunch were removed but they are still selling, and showing large numbers of positive reviews for, his book on the fraudulent HCG diet. Trudeau is in jail because of this scam, and Amazon are still handing him money for it. There are also "Hulda Clark Zapper" toys on sale, books promoting Miracle Mineral Solution, and even homeopathic first aid kits. I'd love it if Amazon began to give a fuck about consumer protection, but I don't think it's happening yet. Guy (Help!) 22:03, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Heh, I found Amazon selling through third-party but fulfilled-by-amazon "attention supplements" that contained a deceptively labelled ingredient close enough to straight up amphetamine that if some USA really wanted, it would probably be prosecutable under the Federal Analogue Act. It took 3 calls, 3 emails, and a bunch of tweets to Amazon to even get them to look at it. Even when escalated to their safety people, it took forever to get them to understand why it wasn't a good thing to be selling a direct amphetamine analogue that had already been called out by the FDA like a year ago... Their practices are not where we should be looking for much of anything. Kevin Gorman (talk) 22:39, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 19:51, 21 October 2015 (UTC).
  • There would also be the question as to whether the edits involved actually were in any real way damaging to the reputation of wikipedia. That would have to be demonstrated for a suit to have any merit. That may not always be possible. And, in fact, in maybe at least some cases, it might be argued that some instances of paid editing would actually maybe help the reputation by developing what might be otherwise clearly notable but underdeveloped or missing content. John Carter (talk) 20:11, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Of all the excuses and rationalizations for paid editing that I've ever heard, that is by far the most creative. And thanks for the legal analysis, counselor. Coretheapple (talk) 13:33, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Echo

The other day I mentioned User:Biosthmors in a discussion. After signing the note I decided it would be nice to have his input, so I wikilinked his user name and signed the post again (with a new date stamp) - I'd heard that doing this will send a "ping" to him and draw his attention to the discussion. He didn't respond and I assumed he had nothing to add to the topic. A few days later he discovered the conversation and very much did have an important contribution to make. He hadn't gotten the "ping".

Biosthmors left a query at Wikipedia talk:Notifications#Why didn't it work?, and a volunteer left an explanation that I had trouble understanding. I left a ping for Biosthmors there, following (I think) the volunteer's instructions but he hasn't responded.

Then another volunteer on the Notifications Talk Page pointed me to a phabricator bug report from over a year ago that had been relegated to "unimportant" status. The request was when you successfully send a notification, something tells you you succeeded.

User:Quiddity has subsequently upgraded its importance to "not completely useless" or something. Wouldn't you think this was pretty fundamental to an effective notifications system?

I decided to add some encouragement to the phabricator page so clicked on "Register with LDAP" whatever that is and was told to expect a confirmation email. I opened the email and followed the link in it to a page that says "Login or register with LDAP", which I can't do because at no point in this process have I been asked to create a user name and password. Now, when I go to phabricator I can't even read or navigate through the site. I'm confronted with a page that says

"You must verify your email address to login. You should have a new email message from Phabricator with verification instructions in your inbox. If you did not receive an email, you can click the button below to try sending another one."

The new email has the same link as the first email, so now I'm effectively locked out of phabricator. Just a whine. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 10:21, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Tracked in Phabricator
Task T68078
And the first line in this phabricator task is:
"This is a request from another user on hewiki who does not do bugzilla."
I don't "do phabricator" either (i don't want to give WMF my email address). And Anthonyhcole can't "do" it. If WMF were actually interested in what the community thinks about the importance of bugs/tasks, they would ...
*create a ping-back for phabricator mentions on-wiki*
a little like (deprecated) meta:Template:Bug, which produces:
T68078 (links from mw m w)
Click on the links to phab-linksearch in different wikis! You mention a phab task in english or german wikipedia and you automatically get links to pages that discuss the same phab task in other language wikis. Why doesn't phabricator provide those "mentions" too? --Atlasowa (talk) 18:21, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
@Atlasowa: As for logging in to Phabricator, you do not have to give the WMF your email address. That was required by the previous bug tracker, Bugzilla. @Anthonyhcole: and Atlasowa, when you go to Phabricator's login screen you'll see that it has a box that says "Login or Register - MediaWiki." Click on that and sign in with your Wikimedia username and password just like any other Wikimedia wiki, it's tied into SUL and CentralAuth. No need for LDAP. Hope that helps you participate better there, at least. Keegan (talk) 19:04, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
No, Keegan, after CentralAuth it says "Phabricator Registration: Email is required." Can you create a phabricator task for my request of on-wiki tracking of phab-tasks? --Atlasowa (talk) 19:14, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
Interesting, my apologies, I didn't realize you had to have email confirmed. Anyway, I can probably do that, but let me make sure I have the right idea of what you're getting it, because I see two possibilities of what you're saying: 1. integrate the features of the deprecated m:Template:Bug to make {{tracked}} have a link to pages that link to the task on-wiki or 2. receive an on-wiki notification when pinged by @username on Phabricator. No. 1 I would think a competent template writer (read, not me) could do. No. 2 I think would be quite complicated and not likely to work, at least not anytime soon. Are you asking for either of those, or something that I'm missing? In writing this up I also found MediaWiki:Gadget-BugStatusUpdate.js, which I had completely forgotten about. You might find the gadget useful if you haven't found it yet, it allows you to query the status of a task and return the result (open, resolved, stalled, etc.). Keegan (talk) 22:05, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
I just clicked on the little button above that says "Tracked in phabricator task T68078" and it takes me to a page that says

Check Your Email

You must verify your email address to login. You should have a new email message from Phabricator with verification instructions in your inbox. If you did not receive an email, you can click the button below to try sending another one. Send Another Email.

When I follow the link in the email it takes me to

Login or Register with LDAP

LDAP Username

LDAP Password

I don't have an LDAP username or password, so now I can't even read, let alone contribute to, phabricator.

User:Keegan, would you mind just adding a comment on my behalf to the relevant bug report along the lines of "Anthony thinks this really needs to be a high priority task"? Cheers. (Did you get this ping?) --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 03:18, 21 October 2015 (UTC) Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 03:24, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Making your Wikimedia Phabricator account
How to create an account on WikiMedia Phabricator using wikitech credentials
Last time i mentioned that i can't contribute to phabricator because i don't want to give WMF my email address, i was advised to "just use a throw-away email", what's your problem? Had i done that i would probably be in the same predicament as Anthonyhcole now and not even be able to read phab tasks... Great trap. --Atlasowa (talk) 13:11, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
No trap is intended at all, @AKlapper (WMF): Andre, any idea on how to get Anthonyhcole unstuck from LDAP signup? Keegan (talk) 18:57, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
The login page is currently more confusing than before. That is due to a code regression (fixes are waiting for review and deployment). I'm sorry for that. For general info how to log into Phabricator, see Creating your Phabricator account.
@Anthonyhcole: Is there a "Login or Register - MediaWiki" button displayed below all that LDAP stuff that you could click please when a Phabricator login page is shown? If there is no such MediaWiki button I am curious what the link's address is in your email.
I'm also surprised that you can't even read Phabricator. When I open a private browser window and click "Tracked in phabricator task T68078" above I can read the bug report in Phabricator without having to be logged in and that is the default for all Phabricator tasks. I'm afraid I cannot reproduce that problem. :( --AKlapper (WMF) (talk) 10:32, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Anthonyhcole, to ping, try using this format: {{u|Keegan}} or {{Ping|Keegan}}. I think the format you're using just displays the username. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 05:46, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

User:Checkingfax, per Wikipedia:Notifications, "Mentions: When your user page is linked to on any talk page or on a page in the Wikipedia: namespace by another user. A number of templates are used for this - {{U}}, {{ping}}, and {{reply to}} - will all trigger notifications. Plain links to user pages will also work: [[User:Example|]]."
Checkingfax the 2 templates that you propose might work (Mentions=notify), or maybe not, how do you know without a "mention confirmation"? And do those templates even exist in meta, or mediawiki, or dewiki etc? This is just adding complexity, not fixing the issue. --Atlasowa (talk) 10:31, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
{{ping}} in some form or another has been ported to many wikis, 107 to be exact. Keegan (talk) 18:57, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Keegan. Above, at 03:24 21 October I added to my existing comment a link to your user page and another timestamped signature. Did you get a ping? (It's this that I'm unsure about: Adding a mention to a comment that I've already signed.) --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 23:51, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Anthonyhcole, if you sign it, adding anything to a userpage automatically pings the owner of the userpage. If you're on any other talk page you have to:
1- Set a fresh ping to the user using one of the several ping template choices
2- Set a fresh comment
3- Set a fresh signature using ~~~ or ~~~~ or ~~~~~
Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 00:16, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

I've always found that posting a message to a user's talk page is good way to ask for their input. It's very reliable and you get confirmation that you actually posted the message. NE Ent 10:38, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

The ping(s) did work, yes :) Keegan (talk) 19:23, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Total number of active users

The number of users who have made at least one action in the last 30 days, seems to have risen significantly in recent weeks, topping 120,000 some time last month (as far as I can remember) and now 125,000. It'd be interesting to know if this is a new record, how many of these users are former Wikipedians returning to editing, and how significant this figure is overall. Are there any estimates as to what proportion are vandalism-only accounts at any one time? Is there also a similar figure for the number of IPs who have edited Wikipedia in the past 30 days, and a way of showing this? Thanks, --Rubbish computer (HALP!: I dropped the bass?) 15:41, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Can you provide a link to your source of these numbers? I can't remember, off the top of my head, where these stats are kept. Liz Read! Talk! 19:44, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
It seems to be here. Everymorning (talk) 01:52, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
@Rubbish computer: Re unregistered user stats, some information about the number of unregistered users and the number of edits they've made in a given week can be found at Weeklypedia. Graham87 11:16, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for all of the links. I think some editors make statements about the decline of Wikipedia that is not supported by the statistics. Liz Read! Talk! 22:27, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
@Liz: @Everymorning: @Graham87: I was talking about the figures at Special:Statistics. Thanks Graham87 for letting me know. --Rubbish computer (HALP!: I dropped the bass?) 11:25, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Rubbish computer, There is a direct template for Active Editors. I put some dynamic numbers on my Userpage:
Total pages on Wikipedia: [[6,817,426]]
Total Wikipedia edit count: 1,216,256,814
Total active Wikipedia editors: 123,717

Here is the wikicode I used: 

Total pages on Wikipedia: [[[[Special:Statistics|{{NUMBEROFARTICLES}}]]]]<br>
Total Wikipedia edit count: {{NUMBEROFEDITS}}<br>
Total active Wikipedia editors: {{NUMBEROFACTIVEUSERS}}<br>

By making the NUMBEROFARTICLES template a wikilink using Special:Statistics as the wikilink target the NUMBEROFARTICLES template links to that nice Special:Statistics table which lists a lot of other helpful data. All the templates in ALL CAPS used above update dynamically when the page is refreshed. There are many such templates available for LOCALTIME, etc. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 20:15, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

@Checkingfax: Thanks! --Rubbish computer (HALP!: I dropped the bass?) 20:17, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Complaint regarding editing of Schizoaffective Disorder page

I have tried several times to remove an image of a painting entitled "Yard with Lunatics" from the Schizoaffective Disorder wiki page. In my request to have it removed I stated that having such imagery from a 1790 painting perpetuates degrading archaic language and stigmatizes individuals with mental illness who might be seeking useful information on this page regarding a serious mental illness. For some reason there is one individual who insists that this painting be on this site ... I do not understand the point. It would seem to me that if there is any possibility that this could bring harm that it could be removed. I kindly ask for some assistance with this issue. 20 October 2015 2601:401:0:C800:74E9:B600:305F:6894 (talk) 23:30, 20 October 2015 (UTC) 23:30, 20 October 2015 (UTC)2601:401:0:C800:74E9:B600:305F:6894 (talk)

Although you might have achieved the result you want, in the future you might consider starting a discussion of a problem on the talk page of an article, rather than edit-warring and then running to Jimbo's talk page for help. If an attempt at discussion doesn't produce satisfactory results, then is the time to reach out for further input. It's hard to get people to behave cooperatively with somebody who doesn't make any effort to cooperate. Looie496 (talk) 11:55, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
We should aim to collect information for educational purposes, not to minimize harm. We are not God: we do not know what knowledge incites people to harm, and when we imagine we do, we are imagining the reader as an inert object rather than as a creative entity. As it happens, the painting appears to be inappropriate, but this is because no clear connection seems to be made between this particular disorder and the painting or artist. And, alas, the same person who removed it went on to revert my plan to illustrate WP:consensus with a perfect example from 1676! Wnt (talk) 15:51, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
The Jimbo Wales user page states:

* Complaints: If you have a complaint, it's best to start with the help desk. Ask a short, friendly question, and fellow Wikipedians will be happy to help. Contacting me directly with a complaint should be reserved for after you have exhausted all other possible remedies.

If you have a complaint about article content, there are many avenues to pursue. The best and simplest way is to just fix it. You can also open a discussion on the article's talk page about the issues you want to address. Be sure that you are adding well-written text using legitimate information from credible, reliable sources. If your change is reverted, continue the [BRD]discussion on the talk page to get consensus. That is how Wikipedia works.

The talk page for Schizoaffective Disorder is [[Talk:Schizoaffective disorder]]. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 20:40, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

ilmpedia.com

I created ilmpedia.com, a Wiki website as a protest to Wikipedia because for years I wasn't allowed to contribute on some of the articles at Wikipedia are now featured articles on my ilmpedia.com. Just had to tell you this. 2607:5600:1D:0:0:0:1467:FADE (talk) 19:37, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Inappropriate Level Marketing? Or one of the items at ILM?
I don't want to visit the website just to find out. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 10:59, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
I'm afraid the OP is going to have to work a little harder to find people who ; a) have any idea what this is about, and b) the subset of "a" who actualy care about it. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 15:02, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
They already have four featured articles over at ilmpedia.com. Here is the complete text of one of them, "Scientific method":
"Scientific method is a body of techniques for investigating phenomena, acquiring new knowledge, or correcting and integrating previous knowledge. To be termed scientific, a method of inquiry must be based on empirical and measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning. During the Islamic Golden Age in 1021 CE Ibn al-Haytham introduces the experimental method and combines observations, experiments and rational arguments in his Book of Optics. There are five major steps in the scientific method: Observe, Hypothesize, Predict, Experiment and Reproduce."
I wish every encyclopedia project well. I do not think we have to worry about this encyclopedia as a rival, at least at this time. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 00:47, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
Sounds like Jagged 85, only they wrote at far more length. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 05:36, 27 October 2015 (UTC).

Wikipedia down

How often does Wikipedia go down? I was just wondering, as it did earlier. Thanks, --Rubbish computer (HALP!: I dropped the bass?) 18:00, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

@Rubbish computer: Servers do go down or experience performance issues every so often, though it's usually not for long. The technical village pump is the go-to place to discuss technical issues, and is probably the best place to ask this question (see Wikipedia:Village_pump_(technical)#Wikipedia_down for discussion of the downtime you're describing). http://status.wikimedia.org/ is a nice site to check out; it shows the status of all of Wikimedia's services, and their uptime in the last 24 hours. Most services have been 100% the last 24 hours; all are > 98%. Perhaps someone else can provide more concrete statistics over the long term. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 18:08, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
@SuperHamster: Okay, thanks. --Rubbish computer (HALP!: I dropped the bass?) 18:11, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Blackout for Cybersecurity Information Sharing Act (CISA)?

Should Wikipedia consider doing a blackout for CISA, similar to the previous Wikipedia:SOPA initiative in 2012? • Sbmeirow • Talk • 16:56, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

NO! For God's sake, we shouldn't be doing any blackouts at all. See this. And now there have at least four proposals in 2015 alone. --Jakob (talk) aka Jakec 17:08, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
Wikipedia should join the American Library Association and display its logo somewhere on some key pages; the ALA is not seen as being as 'political' as ACLU/EFF, but still effectively represents the common interests of those who wish to make information available to the general public. Wnt (talk) 17:40, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

The Atlantic - How Wikipedia Is Hostile to Women

Just posted this afternoon. Aside from a relatively minor error about user rights near the top, Paling does a pretty good job of summarizing and drawing attention to some of the more salient trends/problems/incidents. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 18:27, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

The article is an interesting read, and highlights areas that need work. I'm sure we can all identify some items in that article that might deserve a more complete treatment of issues, but this is a minor point, and universally true in my experience whenever I read an article in the media about a subject where I have personal experience.
I am puzzled about the assertion that Nellie A. Brown was nominated for deletion immediately after creation. I don't see it in the edit history, nor did I find it in the AFD logs. Am I missing something?--S Philbrick(Talk) 20:26, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
This is another factual error by the writer, Sphilbrick. The article in question is Clara H. Hasse, as confirmed on Facebook by Missvain (Sarah Stierch). At the time a new page patroller flagged it for deletion, the content consisted of "Clara H. Hasse (1880?-1924) was an assistant horticulturist and botanist in the Bureau of Plant Industry, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Washington, D.C., and later worked at the Florida Experiment Station." Not a strong claim of notability. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 00:47, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for tracking that down. That's exactly what I wanted to do, see what it looked like at the time of nomination. There are lessons to be learned from that article. One potential lesson is that taggers should allow a bit more time before nomination, but, arguably, an equally valid lesson is that draft space was created for stubs like this. The only lesson which doesn't seem supported is the notion that gender was involved.--S Philbrick(Talk) 01:26, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
Eric Corbett is not an administrator, as the article states incorrectly. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 20:36, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
It's just the normal press hyperbole. It makes for a better story if I'm an administrator, so that's what they describe me as. Eric Corbett 20:42, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
And nothing indicating Lightbreather's ban was for their disruptive editing on gun control topics. It seems the reader is deliberately left to draw their own (wrong) conclusions. --NeilN talk to me 21:25, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
FWIW, the author expressed (via Twitter) that she's trying to have that line (EC=admin) corrected. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 21:28, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
Eric, does that give you a claim for defamation :) --S Philbrick(Talk) 01:11, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
To be fair there's nothing in the actual Arbcom decision indicating that her ban was for disputive editing on gun control topics either. It simply states "Lightbreather is site-banned. They may request reconsideration of the ban no earlier than one year after it is enacted." Not only that but 4 of the arbs who voted to support the ban cite her reaction to the porn pictures as what's pushed them over the edge. The words "gun control" are not mentioned once in the support section for the ban. Brustopher (talk) 21:32, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
The findings of fact overwhelmingly refer to her gun control edits. --NeilN talk to me 21:41, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
Of course, Paling’s argument remains devastating: calling a woman a cunt is permissible, but that woman’s feisty editing was intolerable, even after taking into account vicious and unremitting sexual harassment. Indeed, ArbCom initially urged future culprits faced with harassment to lower their profile -- an invidious recommendation that was reluctantly amended after community outcry.
In the big picture, petty procedural details have no impact outside Wikipedia, while Wikipedia's continuing embrace of harassment and protection of harassers remains the key story for the world outside the project’s back rooms. MarkBernstein (talk) 22:22, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
No woman was called a cunt so far as I'm aware, and certainly not by me, admin or not. Eric Corbett 22:49, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
Were you correctly quoted? "the easiest way to avoid being called a cunt is not to act like one." Smallbones(smalltalk) 02:42, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
The quote is correct, unfortunately. The link is here.AKAF (talk) 05:55, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
In which the only specific person referenced is Jimbo... Rhoark (talk) 02:04, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
Excellent article. Another example the article could have mentioned is the awful way that women editors are generally treated in WP's science and alternative medicine articles by WP's "pro-science" editors. Cla68 (talk) 22:44, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
It seems to me that some editors encounter opposition because they promote the theories of what Jimbo calls "lunatic charlatans", not because of their genders. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 00:57, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
It's rarely as black and white as all that, and yes, there may well be a gender issue in some of the articles I've seen though I don't see the issue raised much. Not at all in the ongoing GMO arbitration to my knowledge. Coretheapple (talk) 13:53, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
Cullen328, there's an essay on [[lunatic charlatans]]. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 01:09, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

The article doesn't say that Eric Corbett is an admin now, but rather that he was an admin at the time of this discussion. However, the log for Corbett's userpage gives no hint that this was ever the case. So yes, it seems to be wrong (not that there was any reason to doubt Corbett's own word that it was). I just wished I'd looked here before I looked around for Corbett's RFA (both under his current username and his previous one). Everymorning (talk) 02:37, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

  • The Atlantic piece is distorted, one-sided, self-serving petunia fertilizer. As is fairly typical of most Mainstream Media "Wikipedia Scandal and Hysteria — Click here!" pieces, actually... Carrite (talk) 05:55, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
Why is it that in eight years and almost sixty thousand edits I cannot recall seeing even one instance of gender based attacks on editors? Have I somehow managed to avoid entering the lawless ghetto areas of en.WP? Are there particular topics or subject areas that "attract" such misogynism? I'm aware of, but do not even pretend to understand "Gamergate", probably because computer/video games are a topic I have absolutely no interest in. I very occasionally post to th WikiProject Feminism talk page, (usually in my AFC reviewer role to solicit topic specialist help for reviewing draft submissions) but even there I don't see attacks, probably because they get redacted really quickly. So basically I'm asking if there are particular areas where the hate occurs, and if so could action be specifically targetted, rather than the constant, non-specific bleating about the issue (here and in the media) that almost never results in any positive action. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 10:06, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
If only there were news articles documenting specific attacks where you could read about them and realize they exist. Gamaliel (talk) 13:14, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
Now that there is a bit of sneaky sarcasm! Well, done. --MurderByDeadcopy"bang!" 22:21, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
If you understand how distorted this Atlantic piece is, then you understand Gamergate. Rhoark (talk) 02:11, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
  • What is the proportion of rude and stupid persons among all these people born from a woman ? It could be be rather high, and the present thread is not a counter-example. If we try to cross-examine the situation introducing sex or gender or any other parameter of this kind as an explanatory variable, the first impression is that men as a whole are more rude/stupid than women as a whole. But this should be pondered, because the first group appears as including more vociferating people. When corrected from the vociferans factor, the sex factor appears to be very less explicative about the stupidity/rudeness by itself. For the specific case of the may be former admin that has been reported by some reporter, calling him a cunt could appear as promotional. But calling him a dick could appear as sarcastic: don't we have a proverb, in such and such corners of the English speaking world, about smaller/greater speeches and smaller/greater dicks ? Therefore, let us limit ourself to: the lapser has relapsed. Pldx1 (talk) 12:27, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
    • I would say the proportion of rude and stupid persons born from a woman is 100%. I've also seen the movie Junior though, so I could be wrong.--Atlan (talk) 12:45, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Incorrectly describing Eric Corbett as an administrator whilst naming three female admins but not describing them as administrators is sloppy journalism but arguably only one mistake. Other articles on the same site that criticise institutions make it clear that they asked the institution for a comment, I wonder if Eric Corbett was extended that same courtesy by the journalist who criticized him on the internet? Also one of the central charges in the Atlantic piece is that Arbcom refused to sanction the offsite harasser "on the grounds that it may “out” the editor that had posted the pictures, or link his username to his real name". but looking at the Arbcom judgement "The functionaries team reviewed evidence submitted about off-wiki sexual harassment of Lightbreather, but was unable to reach a consensus over whether or not it was sufficient to connect a Wikipedia editor to the harassment. The Wikimedia Foundation was kept fully informed throughout. The functionaries and the Arbitration Committee also reviewed evidence of a separate, apparently unrelated, pattern of off-wiki harassment. As there was conclusive evidence of the identity of the perpetrator of the second series of events, User:Two kinds of pork was blocked." That looks to me a non-trivial difference both in that ARBCOM do block where the evidence is clear and that their reason for not blocking was quality of evidence not a preference to protect the perpetrator. Was there an earlier finding that means the article was just a few months out of date? ϢereSpielChequers 12:56, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
  • The chronology in the article is also wrong. We were notified of the off-wiki harassment two weeks AFTER the case started. This is another non-trivial difference,  Roger Davies talk 17:33, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
Let's not forget that we can attack the fake-porn harassment from the far end. WMF should make a clear policy that it will not discriminate against any employee, volunteer, or editor based on whether he or she has appeared naked, whether in a fraud, "revenge porn", or legitimate erotica. By setting a standard that this is not a legitimate ground for discrimination, we can take away a bit of the power of people who try this kind of stunt anywhere, against any woman known or unknown, and move a little bit closer to the day when such harassment will never occur because people know it cannot be effective. Wnt (talk) 15:47, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
There exists a world beyond the Wikipedia and the Wikimedia Foundation, and in that world, having one’s faked nudes publicized can have chilling effects on employment prospects. MarkBernstein (talk) 18:11, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
@MarkBernstein: But dammit, it shouldn't. It's wrong, it's stupid, and it's a clear source of anti-woman discrimination, because so many more people circulate fake (and real) nudes of them. And if Wikipedia doesn't have the balls to stand up and say enough is enough to this nonsense, who do we expect to? Companies don't lead a civil rights parade - people do. And Wikipedia is the people's encyclopedia. Wnt (talk) 21:31, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
That may be true, but pretending that a WMF statement will make everything fine seems would be wrong. I'd also note that the same tactic can be, and has been, used by Gamergate against prominent Wikipedians who are gay, or whom they thought to be gay, or whom they believed could be intimidated by threats to expose their sexual orientation. The answer to sexual harassment at Wikipedia is to punish the harassers, not their targets; Paling is not the first to suggest this, and her article is a good index of how the project appears to the interested public. It’s not a pretty picture. MarkBernstein (talk) 21:42, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
Do you have some evidence of Gamergate actually doing such a thing? Ken Arromdee (talk) 17:38, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
@MarkBernstein: If we oppose a kind of sexual discrimination, then stopping every such case that ends at Wikipedia is about equally useful as stopping the cases that begin here. Either way, it is part of a much larger task, but it is something worth doing. (I don't mean to discourage anyone from attacking the problem at both ends.) Wnt (talk) 21:53, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

The article reads like it was written by Evergreenfir. They should be embarrassed with themselves publishing it. Wikipedia is hostile to everybody, and I mean everybody. And it makes no difference if you're male or female, or what race you are. Everybody is treated poorly here by default .♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:01, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

If you think Wikipedia doesn't have a problem with women, you must be – pardon my French – fucking stupid. Wikipedia culture bends over backwards to protect certain privileged people from accountability for their actions. In any other institution on the planet, calling a woman a "cunt" would mean you'd be expelled pretty sharpish, not given mutually masturbatory accolades and respect. Sceptre (talk) 18:22, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
I just find it interesting and quite humorous that literally the first thing after saying "everyone is treated poorly" is that the poster is "fucking stupid." I think that very well just proved his point, didn't it? Sethyre (talk) 22:51, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
I've asked about half a dozen women I know who happen to be very active content contributors and active with women topics on here and none of them have ever thought they've been harassed because of their gender on wikipedia. They really don't see that sort of thing going on on here myself and believe that all editors face the same problems here. The c word was unfortunate but in the UK it is almost always directed at an annoying male.♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:35, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
Yes, women who were insulted by being called cunts should feel bad, because CLEARLY they don't understand the cultural context that makes such comments ok. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 20:48, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
If only women would just listen to your mansplaining, everything would be just fine. Everyone gets called a cunt? Everyone gets fake porn made about them? I've been here a decade and I've been harassed, doxxed, blackmailed, gotten death threats, there's a webpage out there with my face next to a nazi flag. And all of that pales in comparison to what women have been subjected to here. Because everyone gets shabby treatment does not mean that all the treatment is the same. Even if that were true, the answer isn't "suck it up, ladies", it's "what do we do about this problem?" Gamaliel (talk) 18:25, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
We all face hostility on here Gamaliel. It doesn't happen in the groups I'm involved with, we treat each other as equals. Most of the people I see speaking mostly strongly on the women harassment thing on here are transgender and I think there's a reason for it. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:37, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
Pure nonsense. Smallbones(smalltalk) 18:41, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
Now wikipedia is a big site I'm sure there's certain comments made from time to time which could be perceived as misogyny, but the idea that all women are constantly being attacked on here because they're a woman is utter bollocks.♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:43, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
Let's be clear about this. The only person I've ever called a cunt on WP is Jimbo, who I have every reason to believe is not a female. Eric Corbett 18:49, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
Blofeld, you sound like the kind of person who walks past a Black Lives Matter protest, and thinks its appropriate to say "no, no, all lives matter!". Corbett is just one example of the (Personal attack removed) on Wikipedia. Remember Bedford, who Jimbo personally desysopped for calling female admins "feminazis"? Or Kmweber, who made a habit of harassing women but ArbCom refused to take any action on him? Sceptre (talk) 18:47, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
You state that you're transgender, of course you feel very strongly on it as I think you're likely to perceive society as giving you a hard time anyway. Transgender people in society do unfortunately face discrimination. You may have experienced it on here I don't know, but I've really asked a lot of women editors I know, who are very active on here and some of them constantly work on women articles, and none of them have ever felt like they're being harassed because they're female.♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:51, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
That's as fallacious as saying "There isn't a poverty problem because some of my friends on welfare can still pay their rent". Sceptre (talk) 18:53, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

If I do see women getting a hard time on here it's usually from another female. I never see a bunch of male editors all ganging up on one editor because she's female. I'd go as far as to say that a lot of us decent males here feel protective of some of our female colleagues, quite the opposite of the "harassment".♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:55, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

I should amend my previous comment; you sound like the kind of person who walks past a Black Lives Matter protest and asks "but what about black-on-black crime?" Sceptre (talk) 18:57, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
"I'm just not seeing this alleged misogyny", says editor who calls people "cunts" all the time. Sceptre (talk) 19:50, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
"All the time"? That's a pretty big lie. Eric Corbett 19:55, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
@Screptre: Eric Corbett (who I presume you are referring to here) strongly denies this. Please either withdraw the accusation or provide evidence for your assertion that he (or whichever other editor you are actually referring to) "calls people 'cunts' all the time". Thryduulf (talk) 10:38, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
I find it telling how few (any?) female editors are choosing to participate in this discussion even when the article concerns their experience on Wikipedia. A hostile environment doesn't just mean personal attacks, it can mean that a person feels like their words will be minimized, ridiculed or contradicted.
Of course, you don't need to be female to get this response from other editors. But to a new editor who is checking out a community's environment, trying to decide whether to become an active editor, it definitely can send a message saying, "You are unwelcome here since you don't know all of the rules." I think one reason why the Teahouse is so popular is because it is a safe space where new editors can ask questions when they doesn't understand what is going on and they'll get a response that is not only civil but usually sympathetic, too. That is often not the case on many article talk pages. Liz Read! Talk! 18:54, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
The article also claims that out of all editors with over 500 edits only 6% are women. That's utter tosh too, especially as most editors who are largely inactive never identify as male or female. If you're a regular contributor here you should feel like it's a lot more even.♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:24, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
In fact, if I were to go just by the editors I've worked with, particularly on FA/GAs I'd be inclined to think that it was about 50/50 between males and females. Eric Corbett 19:41, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
Yes, exactly how it seems to me.♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:07, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

@Dr. Blofeld: You're seeing an article in which women talk about their experiences with harassment on enwp, and this does not jibe with the experiences of your female friends on enwp. How does this lead you to the conclusion that "women aren't harassed on Wikipedia" and not "some women are harassed on Wikipedia, though evidently not the ones I've spoken to"? GorillaWarfare (talk) 19:54, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Everybody experiences the problems with the website.. As I say, show me 10 to 20 diffs of obvious malicious harassment of women because of their gender from a range of different people and I might start to see what you're talking about.♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:07, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Blofeld, you might listen to me; please drop this. That you don't see it is a testament to the efficiency of the oversighters at getting rid of the crap and the checkusers at stopping the worst of the nutters coming back; as a former CU/OS I assure that editors who identify as female get bombarded with significantly more crap than male or unidentified users, particularly if they have a photo on their userpage. There's certainly a legitimate debate to be had over whether the gender gap exists to the extent the WMF claim, and if so to what degree that's a problem, but "women statistically are more likely to attract nutters" is really not up for debate. ‑ iridescent 20:21, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
I don't agree, sorry.♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:26, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
What reason do you have to doubt iridescent's evidence? Why should we take your gut feeling over this testimony? Gamaliel (talk) 21:37, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
That's not evidence. It's assertion. "That which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence." (Source--for the "plagiarism" police: Christopher Hitchens.) Writegeist (talk) 21:40, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
By that logic we should also dismiss Blofeld's evidence-free assertion that this is not happening. Gamaliel (talk) 21:44, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
(inserting) I’m surprise you didn’t see that as self-evident in what I said. If I really must spell it out for you: when Iridescent makes an assertion without evidence, Dr. B (or anyone) can dismiss it without evidence. Which in turn is obviously mere assertion. And so on. Writegeist (talk) 22:44, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
I was thinking precisely the same thing. His evidence is "Some people said a thing never happens", whereas we actually have people here, in this very discussion, saying that it does. It's a breathtaking display of ignorance and I-didn't-hear-that from an editor that many people respected for a long time. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 21:52, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
Wikipedia? Hostile to women? Publicly? How about those in a position to do something just inspect their navels & hope the mess goes away? Until the next time. AnonNep (talk) 22:00, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

@Dr. Blofeld: There have been numerous articles discussing the harassment of women on Wikipedia. People such as Sue Gardner have discussed it as a serious issue. Now female victims of harassment on Wikipedia have identified it as a major problem, and you're implying that they're making it up. At this point I'm starting to wonder what exactly it would take to convince you that this is a real issue; somehow I doubt even providing your requested 10 to 20 examples will satisfy this, but here goes. I didn't include diffs on many of these because they have been revision-deleted or suppressed. It was easy to find this number of examples just to do with me; I did not need to look at other women who have been targets of gendered and sexual harassment due to their involvement on this site.

  1. After my picture was used on the fundraising banners, lots of gendered harassment. Note that, to my knowledge, the men featured on the banners did not receive a similar response. [24] [25] [26] [27]
  2. A link to my private Facebook account was posted on my talkpage, as well as in other places around the internet (4chan, Encyclopedia Dramatica, reddit)
  3. Comments telling me to edit less and make more sandwiches, and suggesting that people will not donate unless the banners feature nude photos of me.
  4. Comments implying I was sexually involved with Jimbo Wales.
  5. People dug to find relatives of mine who had Facebook profiles with less strict privacy settings, and shared photos of me from them to various websites. Many of them were digitally altered: my face was photoshopped onto photos of porn actresses, photos of penises were pasted onto them, and in a photo of me holding my niece, she was photoshopped so she appeared black, and the photo was captioned with racial slurs and the suggestion that she was my child. Many of these were captioned so that they would appear in Google searches for my name or username.
  6. Comments on my appearance in a content dispute. (Comments on appearance are a common component of gendered harassment: [28])
  7. Sustained harassment via IRC from a former Wikipedian, primarily consisting of extremely crude sexual fantasies about me and another Wikipedian.
  8. Sustained harassment from someone who was angry that a Wikipedia article was deleted, primarily consisting of gendered slurs and asking if I had gotten cancer yet as some karmic retribution for my actions
  9. This whole situation: [29] [30]
  10. Posts were made implying I was elected to the Arbitration Committee because of my appearance, my sexual involvement with Wikipedians, or because of tongue piercings
  11. I've been receiving talk page messages and emails for about two months now from someone asking me to marry him, often including photos of wedding dresses he would like me to wear. Often from emails like mollywhiteismywife@[domain.com].
  12. Thankspam from accounts like "I love Molly White's Breast Milk", "Molly White's Bra", "I love you Molly White", "MollyWhite s Husband", as well as comments about my appearance, my breasts, and how they would like to have sex with me.
  13. A different slew of accounts with names like "IHeartGorillaWarfare" asking if I have a boyfriend, and again implying I had sex with Jimbo.
  14. A few IPs telling me he knew where I lived and where I worked, making comments about my sex life and whether my coworkers are involved in it, and asking to have sex with me.
  15. [31]

So, does this fit your standards of what constitutes gendered harassment, or is it still "all in my head?" GorillaWarfare (talk) 23:14, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

As an additional note, I don't think anyone is arguing that "every female editor is actively being harassed on here". Even the byline of the article that started this whole discussion is (emphasis mine) "Some female editors have been the target of harassment from their male colleagues". The argument that I'm trying to make is that women are particularly targeted. GorillaWarfare (talk) 23:19, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
Wikipedia attracts a lot of kids, of course they'll create juvenile account names and get nasty with slurs if something is deleted or you deal with them aggressively. Every website has those sorts of juvenile editors/trolls. It is your "job" on here to be a policewoman, and as far as I can see most of the comments/actions you've received were because you enforced something against somebody, and they retaliate over a perceived injustice and look at your user page and find a way to attack you. I think it's because you're seen as a female aggressor you become an easy target for this sort of abuse. Have none of the male arb clerks and others not received abuse on here? ♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:06, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
There's none so blind as those who will not see. I've been on Wikipedia for 7 years, I'm fully identified and held high profile roles. Not even once have I had anything remotely like GorillaWarfare's examples, all negative commentary has been directly related to my actions. WormTT(talk) 09:47, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
Do you think though Worm that she'd get the same level of abuse if she was just a regular editor?♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:04, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
I think that's the wrong question, because it comes with the implication that women should not be allowed to do certain things, or should just accept abuse when they do. As I say, my time on Wikipedia has been similar to GWs, just as high profile, yet I've seen absolutely zero commentary which is not directly related to my actions. WormTT(talk) 10:27, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
No, I'm not implying that women should not be allowed to do certain things or they should accept that sort of abuse, but I do think that if she really has a problem with abuse in her position then take down the photograph and don't identify as female.♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:36, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
So, you agree that simply having the photograph up and identifying as female will lead to increased abuse for her position? WormTT(talk) 10:57, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
Obviously, of course, it makes her an easy target for disgruntled banned editors to attack her and say hurtful things. In her position. She should never have to hide her identity and should be proud of who she is, but as John Carter says there are sickos on the web who'll get at her. If she was a regular content editor though and not regularly enforcing against people she'd not get all that abuse.♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:52, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
And differently targeted. Almost all harassment of men that I am aware of is very closely related to or as a result of their own actions, primarily on-wiki, rather than simply for being male or for an attribute of their appearance. I have to say though, the idea that tongue piercings could be at all relevant to arbcom elections is mind boggling! Thryduulf (talk) 23:35, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
I disagree that it's mind-boggling. The implication is that I have been fellating those who voted for me, and you'll see from my other examples that "she's sexually involved with Wikipedians" is a fairly common trope at this point. Attempting to discount a woman's contributions or achievements by suggesting she's slept with people to make it happen is a fairly prime example of gendered harassment, and one that many Wikipedians are all-too-familiar with by this point. GorillaWarfare (talk) 23:52, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Ah, I hadn't linked the tongue piercing comments with the allegations of sexual activity comments (which I'm well aware of the existence of, sadly). Without that context, it seemed a rather odd thing to suggest was relevant to anyone's voting. Thryduulf (talk) 00:17, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
I see from your clarification that you didn't mean your "mind-boggling" comment this way, Thryduulf, but it set me off on this train of thought, so I'm going to plunk my response here even though it's speaking more "generally" than "to you": the saddest thing to me in this discussion is that it's not mind-boggling at all to any of the people - many of whom are probably reading this thread now, and even more of whom don't even know this discussion is going on - who have been subjected to similar treatment. In my years on Wikipedia I've had gender-based harassment directed at me very much like Molly's in some ways. Each case is different, of course, but there has been template vandalism insulting my appearance, offwiki commentary about who I'm sleeping with and whether I advance my onwiki "career" by sleeping with men, a troll once registered a domain identifying me by my full name and used it to host content going into graphic detail about my dox and my supposed sexual history, another one once sent me an email threatening to "reveal to the world" that I used a pseudonym (this one with rather dark irony - I mean hey, who uses a pseudonym on the internet, what, are people going to dox you or something? ...Oh) The list goes on from there. So none of it - nothing Molly has described and almost nothing I see other victims describe anymore - is at all mind-boggling to me, even though it might be to people who have been fortunate enough to not have been victimized or had people they personally know victimized. And that's sort of the point: to the rest of us - and oh, there are a lot of us, more than you'd ever be aware unless you happened to know us, because "someone wrote 'fanfic' about my sexual history" is not something I often bring up in conversations - it's the same old, depressing, horrifying news. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 00:45, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
I have to agree that it is likely that the percentage of pervs and vandals and harassers is probably as high here as it is in a lot of other websites. And, as someone who has seen some of the comments made by some others posted at WO and elsewhere, there is good reason to think that some of the "enemies" female editors here might have at other web sites is probably higher than the amount of harassment males get. We tend to have more male editors than female ones, and a lot of sometimes disugustingly foul-mouthed INTJs and others of a perhaps somewhat antisocial nature. This makes it, unfortunately, more likely that some of that large number of regulars and others here are going to target the females, who tend to be the most frequent targets anyway.
Some of us guys are, let's face it, scum. And a lot of those scum are really into the internet as a social outlet. I wish that weren't the case, and I regret that some of the declared females have had to put up with as much as they have. Unfortunately, hoping no one sees this as a copout, I actually don't have a clue how to institute changes to make this site any safer overall for female editors than the internet in general is. I wish that weren't the case though, and would love to see some ideas. John Carter (talk) 01:05, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for the diffs. Something I've always found amazing is that for any other sort of claim, diffs are an expected part of the process, but when talking about gender-based harassment, we're expected to take the complaints on faith -- this is literally the first time in ten years that I've seen a complaint about gender-based harassment that was backed by diffs. --Carnildo (talk) 01:15, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
Although I did play ball here, this is not something I want to encourage for three major reasons:
  1. I had to skate fairly close to the lines when I discussed the harassment that has since been revision-deleted or suppressed—administrators and oversighters are expected not to share information that has been hidden, so this makes for an unfortunate catch-22 when it comes to providing diffs. This is the same reason the community has more or less accepted things like oversight, checkuser, and ArbCom blocks on the "just believe us" rationale.
  2. Posting diffs of the harassment only draws attention to information that the victims might not necessarily want eyes on. If I was expected to post a diff of someone posting a link to my personal Facebook account, or a link to someone sharing doctored images of my face on porn actresses, I most likely wouldn't.
  3. Requiring diffs completely ignores the issue of harassment that begins due to on-wiki issues but then moves offsite. This can be some of the most vicious harassment—people finding your personal email address, contacting your family, posting photos of you elsewhere, etc. We have no functional way of dealing with this harassment currently, and requiring diffs only worsens this. GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:23, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
Yep. The only onwiki item from "my" list that I provided above (the template vandalism, which transcluded insults, etc against me all over the project) has since been oversighted...because it contained, if I recall correctly (I have absolutely no idea how I would go back now and find which particular template was edited in any particular instance of this, but I assure you I remember quite vividly the mortification and feeling of helplessness, and the horror my father expressed when the troll called his home phone number, found via doxx someone else had published on me, to tell him just how and why his daughter was internet-famous), my home address and some other highly personal information. Much of the harassment people experience is just not diff-able, and what is diff-able is often so intensely personal or embarrassing that, if it hasn't already been oversighted, it's not something someone will speak about publicly if that means they have to show their shame - and it does indeed feel like a personal shame to people who have been victimised this way - to thousands of people watchlisting a page like like Jimmy's talk. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 01:39, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
As someone else who has been on the banner - and with more exposure than GorillaWarfare and less than Jimmy: I did not receive gendered harassment. I got a shit ton of it, mind, but none of it was because I was male. My harassment was significantly less than GW's while I was also open to exposure significantly more. The math is on her side.--Jorm (talk) 07:20, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

I just want to say that I can confirm GW's and iridescent's assertions as a checkuser and oversighter. --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 00:09, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

  • All I'll say is that it is possible for Wikipedia (like every single crowd-sourced website, ever) to have female editors that have experienced harassment (as far as I am aware, the account operated by the person who sexually harassed Lightbreather is still not blocked) and for this article to be mostly bollocks. The two are not mutually exclusive. Black Kite (talk) 01:07, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Lightbreather was harassed off-wiki by more than one person. One account was blocked. The holder of a second account was accused of also being involved, but despite a lengthy review of the evidence the functionaries team (Arbcom, checkusers and oversighters) did not reach consensus on whether this was so. That does not suggest that any part of the off-wiki harassment did not occur; only that the functionaries as a group did not agree there was sufficient evidence to link it to the second alleged WP account. -- Euryalus (talk) 08:03, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Lightbreather was sexually harassed on-wiki, in pretty much the same way Malik Shabazz was subjected to racial abuse, and not one thing was done about it. Indeed, the harasser has been afforded special protection by some admins, and comments I've made about the incident have been suppressed to protect the harasser from "outing". The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 21:22, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
  • @GorillaWarfare: The list you give above is one of the best source documents I've seen about how women are harassed on Wikipedia. But I don't quite understand the part about Facebook. When you say it was a private Facebook site, do you mean the harasser had access to content was only readable by your friends, so that whoever was doing the access was either on that list, or else have some kind of Facebook administrator access? I mean, I doubt JTRIG was on Wikipedia's case, but if they were, that's the kind of place where they'd shine. Wnt (talk) 10:23, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
@Wnt: To be honest, I'm not entirely sure how it happened. I had configured my Facebook privacy settings so that my profile would not appear in searches. Somehow someone figured out the link to my Facebook anyway, and when I changed the URL in response, they found the new one as well. After that happened, I spent somewhere near six hours (Facebook does not make this easy) going through my list of friends and removing anyone who I didn't know very well, because I was afraid a Facebook friend was involved in the doxxing. GorillaWarfare (talk) 20:17, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
@GorillaWarfare: Hmmm... I'm probably paranoid, but this is the kind of thing that makes me suspicious. Sexism is well known as one of Wikipedia's stumblingblocks, and if there were someone out there trying to hinder our site because they feel it infringes on their commercial opportunities, or for political purposes, they might exploit it, much like the FBI tried to stir up trouble between supporters of Malcolm X and Martin Luther King Jr. We expect trolls to act a certain way, sure, and there's a bit of trollish blood in many of us, but since the 90s there's always been a certain amount of reason to suspect that sometimes 'trolls' are mobilized by someone, web brigades for example, and acting with higher coordination and technical support. So I tend to seize on something like this as reason to keep that model in mind, though it's far short of proof. Wnt (talk) 23:02, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Expecting women to hide behind veil of invisibility

Attempted female "cloak of invisibility" made my talk on "non-hostile working environment" at Wikiconference USA 2015 even more unintelligible, since nobody could hear it. -- Monumenteer2014camper (talk) 00:14, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Dr. Blofeld, the idea that women should not disclose their identity to protect themselves from harassment pretty much would stop the work that I'm doing at Cochrane, since it is important for myself and Cochrane affiliated contributors to disclose their affiliations to Cochrane and other research organizations. Besides that, it is offensive that you are suggesting that women need to hide under a veil of invisibility to avoid being harassed. Sydney Poore/FloNight♥♥♥♥ 14:10, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Please don't twist my words. I said that if that sort of abuse is genuine in her position then if she really finds it intolerable then she could simply avoid being a target and not disclose her gender identity. This isn't a regular female contributor to wikipedia, she's somebody who's job it is on here to enforce things against people, and a volunteer job at that. No, she should not have to hide who she is and should be proud of it, as I said above, but when dealing with nasty vandals and disgruntled young oiks, she is going to become a target. You can't stop people from attacks, even if you quickly stamp it out. But you can do things to minimise trouble and protect women on here from that sort of thing, which I believe affects a minority.♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:57, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

I can't say I'm shocked to return to this discussion to find that Dr. Blofeld has shifted gears from "women are not harassed on Wikipedia because they're female" to "okay well maybe you were but maybe if you hadn't been so aggressive..." You seem to have made up your mind on the matter, and despite two women bringing up their own experiences with harassment based on their gender, insist that it is somehow something we're asking for by daring to participate in parts of the site where men are able to participate much more safely. The problem here is not that I'm open about being a woman, or that I have a photograph on my userpage, or that I'm an arbitrator. The problem is that women are not able to participate in the same areas of the site as men without receiving harassment like I've detailed above, and rather than wanting to change that or acknowledging that it's a problem, you're suggesting I just leave it to the men. I am fortunate in that I am able to weather the harassment fairly well—I have understanding family and friends, and I don't worry as much as some people have to about harassment affecting my employment. I recognize that I could probably decrease the level of harassment if I stopped arbitrating, stopped editing outside of the mainspace, or stopped editing Wikipedia entirely. But I should not have to, and the fact that I would either have to stop participating in areas of the site that I enjoy or start hiding who I am to escape this level of harassment should not be blithely regarded as an immutable characteristic of the environment here. GorillaWarfare (talk) 15:01, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

I concede to the fact that wikipedia is a huge website and that some women editors might have experienced things I don't know about. But I really never experience any form of sexism towards female editors I often work with from anybody, even in heated disputes. "The problem is that women are not able to participate in the same areas of the site as men without receiving harassment". Yes, I agree with that. as you've proved you've faced discrimination, I just didn't like the way it was being implied that all women editors by default, even those low profile ones quietly editing away are constantly being abused because they're female. No, I'm not suggesting that you leave being an arbitrator to a man. I personally could not care less if all of the arb members were women, I honestly don't think it matters, male and female editors I believe are equally competent in all fields of the site, but I am saying that given that it's a high pressure position and you're susceptible to abuse you could minimise what you get thrown at you by not disclosing your identity. You should not have to, but all the work towards female empowerment in the world is not going to stop nasty sexist little trolls from backlashing when enforced.♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:31, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
I had my first really yucky harassment before I was an administrator when I reverted a vile edit and reported the person who made. Reverting vile edits and reporting the user is something that people do every day. Seeing this type of problem is the reason that I decided to become an administrator, arbitrator, chechuser, oversighter, and volunteer for the Fund Dissemination Committee, take a position as Wikipedian in Residence in an outside organization, and join the Inspire Campaign Gender Gap committee, be one of the founder of User Group WikiWomen, and act as an advisor to the the new Wikipedian in Residence at WVU. Part of my motivation for all the work I do (volunteer and paid) is making Wikipedia more welcoming to women and other under represented groups of people. Because there is no way that the body of work on Wikipedia will be complete and free of bias until the community is more diverse. I'm not going to hide behind a veil of invisibility, because it destructive to myself and the community for people to need to hide their identifying characteristics. Sydney Poore/FloNight♥♥♥♥ 15:56, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
There does seem to be a bit of a clear double-standard around here, although, I acknowledge, having only edited in certain parts of the site to a great degree, that I suppose it might be the case that the subject areas I don't know might have worse macho posturing than the areas I do know. And, yes, I suppose, my own preconceptions might be blinded by my own possible macho posturing, I dunno. As one of the old farts around here, I can still remember—to the degree I can remember anything these days, mind goes when you least expect it and all that—the rather more obvious and rather obnoxious sexism of the 60s, 70s, and 80s. For a lot of those of the boomer generation, like me, use of sexist commentary as an early resort is something we grew used to as kids, and because of that we can sometimes take unfortunately early and easy recourse to it.
So, to the extent that is a societal issue beyond wikipedia, I really don't know how to deal with it in an effective way independently here. And, from what I can remember of overheard conversations among women among themselves, and what some women have occasionally said here, women without men around can sometimes behave as badly, if not worse. Granted, we will rarely if ever see such behavior here, where men outnumber women 9-1 or something like that, but to an extent this seems to be an endemic social problem which might not lend itself to any sort of ready remedy. Unfortunately. And, once again, my apologies if this comes across as some sort of cop-out. John Carter (talk) 15:15, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
It is true that many different groups of people can be harassed because of who they are. But because it happens to other groups, too, doesn't diminish the importance of addressing the role that hostility towards women plays in perpetuating the gender gap on Wikipedia. Systemic bias in Wikipedia content is something that can't be resolved until there is a more diverse community on Wikipedia English and through out the wikimedia movement. Unfortunately, the people who publicly state that they care about addressing systemic bias are more likely to be subject to hostility since this community accepts people bad mouthing people who are working on it, and blames them for their fate. This empowers the trolls to take it to the next level of harassment. Sydney Poore/FloNight♥♥♥♥ 15:40, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
So, I hope everyone feels free to call me whatever they want here, but, are we really sure that expanded diversity of various sorts will reduce the amount of harassment, and or systemic bias, which is a different thing entirely, or, maybe, might it perhaps simply raise the number of factions who may engage in a broader range of incivilities, and, maybe, might it just make matters worse overall? I am the first to acknowledge that there is a tendency for some men in the West to be more uncivil than some others, or at least more obviously uncivil, but if we basically expand the incivility to more groups,will that make things better, or worse? I know that the Israel-Palestine content has a very good diversity in its editorship, and it's only had to have been addressed by ArbCom three times to date.
I would love to have this site edited only by perfectly behaved people, even knowing I would be excluded from that site almost immediately. And, basically, I think it is, more or less, an impossible dream.
Maybe I am just trying to indicate, in my regular way, that maybe pragmatism at some level, might be the more appropriate thing to act on here. Having said that, I have no real clear idea myself what the practical way to address this might be. John Carter (talk) 21:37, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

I think that the issue of women feeling - or being told - that we need to hide behind a cloak of invisibility gets to the root of the problem. I was among the ranks of "women editors who haven't had much problem with sexism on-wiki," and what I've faced since has still been minor compared to what the women above have faced. But I am convinced that this was because I DID have the "cloak of invisibility": It may be a generational issue (I too am a boomer, thus not the under-35-women demographic most often targeted) but also because I had a gender-neutral username and downplayed my gender as much as possible. I hadn't deliberately raised my profile much on-wiki as a whole until my RfA, where I was doxxed, subjected to some truly bizarre accusations, and had some other harassment occur that has since been oversighted. I agree with those who say that editors who identify as male or gender neutral may be attacked for their actions, but not for being male. Those who openly identify as women, particularly if young, are more openly attacked with gender-based harassment. But hiding our gender isn't the way forward; the way forward is to hit the trolls who engage in sexual harassment immediately and with both barrels. Montanabw(talk) 19:22, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Blofeld, just as a matter of interest; have you had people refer to you, over and over again, as female, even after you have asked them many, many times to be addressed as "he"? No? Well, take a look, where some editors proclaim that "my custom is to refer to all Wikipedia editors as "he". Talk about welcoming female editors. And I agree wholeheartedly with Sydney Poore/User:FloNight: encouraging diversity means that those who are not "white, young males" should be seen, and not hidden away. Huldra (talk) 23:18, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
A very minor technical solution to the latter problem. The solution I use is to use "they" instead of "he" or "she", if you are like me, and are forgetful sometimes. More people don't use it because they incorrectly believe that "they" should not be used as a singular pronoun. See this, for a debunking of that mistaken, but widely held view. Kingsindian ♝♚ 09:46, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
I think "singular they" is ok to use, (I use it sometimes myself), but if editors clearly identify on their user-page that they are male/female; then I try to use the "right" s/he, Huldra (talk) 21:14, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Interlude: NE Ent soapbox

I believe I've passed the age of consciousness and righteous rage,

I've found that just surviving was a noble fight

I once believed in causes too, had my pointless point of view

— Billy Joel, Prelude/Angry Young Man [32]
  • Worldwide:
    • "These things are universal. There is not one single country where women can feel absolutely safe." Taina Bien-Aime, executive director, Equality Now. [1]
    • "Despite great strides made by the international women’s rights movement over many years, women and girls around the world are still married as children or trafficked into forced labor and sex slavery. They are refused access to education and political participation, and some are trapped in conflicts where rape is perpetrated as a weapon of war. "[2]
  • Internet:
    • "Will the Internet ever be a safe place for women? This question might seem naïve. If you are a woman with an online presence, after all, you may have grown so accustomed to Internet harassment that you cannot even imagine an alternate future." [3]
    • (On twitter) "Feminine usernames incurred an average of 100 sexually explicit or threatening messages a day. Masculine names received 3.7." (Hess) [4]

Note that Hess, quoting Danielle Citron, discusses at length, the conflict between technical measures to stop harassment and privacy, as advocated by Electronic Freedom Foundation (EFF). Most importantly here, as we all know WMF prioritizes privacy a la EFF. Point: issues raised here go far beyond anything Wikpedia caused or can control.

  • Wikipedia
    • How Wikipedia Is Hostile to Women [5]

The implication being it's not hostile to men? As a volunteer with 1,000+ WP:WQA and 2,600+ WP:ANI edits, I will orignal researchingly tell you flat out hostility is not unique to women. Some editors in conflict will throw any scrap of personal information into a pissing contest. For example, in this single edit, a person unhappy with an arbcom decision manages to impugn the arbitrator's a) education status, b) chosen profession, and c) country of origin. This is not to say it's equivalent to gender based harassment; however, a hierarchy of victimhood is not something I'm particularly interested in.

I'd love to change the world

But I don't know what to do

So I'll leave it up to you

— Alvin Lee, I'd Love to Change the World[33]

This I know -- Wikipedia is huge, with 123,717 active users, there are 15,305,772,372 possible one to one interactions. Therefore, it is entirely reasonable a content editor like User:Dodger67 (~10% Wikipedia:) or a WP:FA focused User:Dr Blofeld will not have seen personal evidence of misogyny. Nonetheless, they deserve to be treated with respect; you don't make Wikipedia less hostile to anybody with hostility. Sure, you can make a section of Wikipedia a politically correct "no speech" zone, but silencing folks won't win hearts and minds, won't make anything better. NE Ent 14:28, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Oliva Ward. "Ten Worst Countries For Women". Toronto Star.
  2. ^ "Womens rights". Human Rights Watch.
  3. ^ Samantha Allen. Daily Beast http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/08/28/will-the-internet-ever-be-safe-for-women.html. {{cite web}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)
  4. ^ Amanda Hess. "Why Women Aren't Welcome on the Internet". Pacific Standard.
  5. ^ Paling, Emma (October 21, 2015). "How Wikipedia Is Hostile to Women". The Atlantic. Archived from the original on October 21, 2015. Retrieved October 21, 2015.
  • The thought processes that lead to grandstanding on men, somehow, as victims of Wikipedia, who need urgent respect, & less hostility just leaves me speechless. Really. AnonNep (talk) 14:40, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
He's right though. Instead of focusing on Molly, we need to talk about the fact that it is MEN who both give and take the vast majority of the insults here. It is the men who deserve a WikiProject for them and a task force focused on getting more men editing here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.170.47.131 (talk) 23:43, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Well, to give NE Ent credit, he was on the scene for a non-female case, one of the first big sexual discrimination/harassment cases on Wikipedia, and was one of many who helped to lay the groundwork for some of Wikipedia's core principles on the subject, like:

  • Complaining about harassment with anything but ironclad evidence is a more serious offense than participating in it.
  • A complete "veil of invisibility" is the only excuse not to have your private life dredged up in Wikipedia disputes.
  • Outing editors to pierce that veil can legitimately be done for the most trivial or technical of reasons.
  • Even the most outrageous false accusations and highly coordinated offsite badgering is no excuse for leniency when the victim gets even slightly angry.
  • The victim of harassment may be partially rehabilitated, but will never be forgiven.
  • Even the most outstanding history of prolific, helpful, high quality editing is worth absolutely nothing.
  • Upholding these principles is a royal road to ArbCom (as a member of the committee, that is).
I am loath to mention the precedent, since nothing good will come of doing so, but it is actually a much clearer-cut example of what is wrong with Wikipedia's approach to sexism than Lightbreather's case Wnt (talk) 12:56, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Block of Eric Corbett

  • Oh, and since I've just noticed it, whoever it was that suggested (presumably off-line) that Kirill block Eric (Kirill's first block for a year) for responding to a thread making false statements about him; you're a complete fucking idiot, and so is Kirill for falling for your shit. Next time, have the guts to stand by your blocks yourself. Do you take us all for idiots? No, obviously you do. Silly of me. Black Kite (talk) 01:17, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

This is Eric's 6th block in 2015, and he clearly violated his topic ban. He has asked that he not be unblocked and stated that he will not return to Wikipedia. It's about time. Smallbones(smalltalk) 01:48, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

  • Perhaps you could have a party to celebrate whilst, yet again, the actual harassers of women here get away scot-free. Black Kite (talk) 01:53, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
This is so silly — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.143.130.12 (talk) 02:48, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
Eric Corbett is an equal opportunities employer when it comes to being rude to other Wikipedians. The attempt by The Atlantic to portray him as a misogynist is sloppy journalism. It is ironic that the topic ban has been interpreted in a way which prevents him from defending himself on-wiki.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 05:50, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
I want to commend GorillaWarfare for documenting the harassment she has received, which is vile and ugly. I monitored and observed a tiny percentage of it after her photo was used in a fundraiser, and it was constant and despicable for a couple of weeks. This kind of conduct makes me ashamed to be a male and I simply cannot comprehend why any man would conduct himself this way. We must do a better job of putting a stop to this disgusting misbehavior.
It would be useful, though, if journalists would engage in fact checking and allowing people criticized in their articles a chance to comment. Articles riddled with basic errors and sweeping generalizations are not all that useful in the end. They may do more harm than good. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 06:29, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
Yes, it's clear abuse, but do you think she'd be treated like that if she regularly edited wikipedia and wasn't involved in enforcement? I think if you act aggressively on wikipedia you get stuff thrown at you anyway, and if you're a young female with a photograph up you become an easy target and it can bring out the worst side of juvenile male editors. I just don't like articles like that Atlantic one implying that all women are subject to constant abuse on here because they're female. And I don't like the way it is being implied that Eric is just like the types who doctor images and make other disgusting comments. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:29, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
Not all abuse and hostility is visible on Wikipedia. Edits get reverted, rev'deleted and oversighted, emails are sent that other editors do not see, threads are created on off-wiki discussion boards bashing editors and sometimes revealing personal information.
Again, I'm not saying that male editors do not also get harassed but I do want to point out that not all harassment of Wikipedia editors is public and visible, in fact, like covering up graffiti as soon as it is done, abusive remarks are usually covered up and go unacknowledged in order to WP:DENY. The standard advice regarding trollish behavior is "Ignore it and it will stop" so I'd argue that there is more that occurs than what is noticed by other editors. Some of the female editors who are vocal on Wikipedia about harassment often find themselves to be further targeted and even facing blocks. For women, the pressure to, as ArbCom said at one point, "lower your profile" and also not draw attention to the harassment is pretty strong because when one does speak out, the situation often gets worse than it was before. Liz Read! Talk! 10:47, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
I do think that if you act aggressively on wikipedia you get stuff thrown back at you, and if you keep a lower profile and avoid drama you can avoid the more serious forms of abuse. That does not excuse the sorts of comments and abuse Gorilla has received or make it acceptable, but as far as I can see it is not true that most female editors have to deal with that level of abuse. I think there is a difference between the odd childish vandal/sock making sexual remarks on a talk page compared to a regular male editor or a group of male editors who constantly harass and abuse women on wikipedia purely because they're female. The impression I get from that article is that they think regular, very active male editors spend their time going about the site picking on women and I never see it in the line of work I do.♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:13, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
Do you get that a) it is not your perception that matters here and b) your constant bludgeoning dismissal of the problem is precisely the environment that allows worse abuse to occur and is abusive in and of itself? FFS you say 'prove it with diffs' and victims step forward and do so and then you dismiss them by saying it is their fault. Despicable. Harassment of women happens. If you can not do something constructive then do not put up roadblocks with walls of text denying it even happens. Doing that one thing will improve the environment just a little bit. JbhTalk 12:09, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
I didn't say it was their fault, but I am saying that if she was a regular quiet content contributor she'd never get that level of abuse. The women editors I know have never had anything sexist thrown at them, so why do you honestly think Gorilla has had to deal with all of that?♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:06, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
Really? Because she's young, cute and the teenage trolls like to dribble. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:58, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) "I'm not saying it is her fault only that it would not have happened it she behaved differently" Wow! The cluelessness... it burns! The whole freaking point is that she should not have to be a "quite content contributor" to avoid sexually inappropriate comments and worse. She should be able to be as annoying, bossy, intransigent, high profile, active, knock whatever heads need knocking or anything else she wants to be here and not have people sexually harass her. (Not imputing those characteristics just illustrating) Do you understand that your comments are roughly equivalent to "well she should not have been wearing that short skirt and been out so late"?

Ideally no one should be required to modify their behavior out of fear of sexual attack, that is what we are speaking of here - sexual attack. Our world is a pretty shitty place so that fear is justified in many cases. The idea is to make this place as bit safer by punishing the abusers consistently and not, as you have been doing, providing excuses for the abuse, ("... if you keep a lower profile...") or denying it happens (..."I don't see it"...) or much worse - trivializing it "...childish vandal...". Right now your attitude is part of the problem. You need to recognize that. If you can not do that then at least apply enough introspection to understand that you have no understanding of the problem and are missing something and therefore should probably avoid commenting on what you do not comprehend. Lack of empathy and understanding on this issue is not, by itself, bad but constantly and verbosely waving that ignorance about is. JbhTalk 14:01, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

OK, so now I'm to blame for all of the sexist problems on the site. Eric and myself are to blame for it all!♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:15, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
  • I have no comment on Eric. But, yes your attitude and those who share it are a major part of the problem here. That what you state above seems to be sarcasm rather than understanding is sad. That you do not understand that dismissing and trivializing genuine harm contributes to the environment that allows that harm, and worse, is sad. That you would rather argue against the existence of a problem rather than helping address the issue by, at a minimum, simply stopping talking is, well, more than sad, it is abusive. I know Wikipedia culture frowns on personal characterizations of behavior but what you have been doing on this thread is bigoted and abusive. You are re-victimizing victims by dismissing and trivializing their complaints. You have derailed a thread that could have been used to address the issue into polemic about whether harassment occurs and if it does then, well they should not have been so active. The debate has moved beyond whether there is a problem - recognize that - the question is how can Wikipedia address the problem in its own space. My firm opinion is one step is to not accept any editor denying that there is a problem. Call them on their bullshit and tell them to stop it. So... stop it. JbhTalk 16:02, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
Did The Atlantic make any attempt to contact Eric Corbett for a comment before publishing this article? Sadly Eric cannot tell us because he has been blocked for a month for replying to this thread on Jimbo's talk page.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 06:35, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
  • This incident is increasingly looking like previous ones involving Lawrence Summers and Tim Hunt. In all of these cases, the mainstream media worked itself into a lather over alleged sexism by the people involved. On closer inspection, things were not so clear cut. The Atlantic seems to have decided that Eric Corbett is guilty as charged, without giving him a right of reply, which would be standard journalistic practice.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 07:49, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
  • To be fair to the Atlantic itself, this doesn't actually look like a piece of journalism, it just looks like a mildly tweaked version of whatever it was that the Wikipedia editor involved told or sent her. Black Kite (talk) 08:11, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
    • As I understand it, the article was written after interviewing at least two female editors (GorillaWarfare and Keilana, possibly others too) several years before the Lightbreather case even began. Your supposition is therefore incorrect. Thryduulf (talk) 10:35, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
      • First of all, I didn't say that's what it was, I said that's what it looks like - which it does. Secondly, if you are correct, I would have expected the journalist to fact-check the article with GW and Keilana before publishing it. Hence, poor journalism either way. Black Kite (talk) 13:04, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
      • So it was pre-written, long before the involvement of the first editor they name check? Nor did they get in touch with Eric to fact check the simplest of errors? That's very lazy journalism. As others have said, Eric is an equal opportunities insulter. WM certainly has a problem around women, there is a problem with Eric, but these are not the same problem. To block Eric after this incident reflects badly on WP, and (unwarrantedly) badly on Eric too. It's not quite as bad as Commons, where it's OK for admins to stalk female editors to their homes and they'll have admin permissions re-instated afterwards against a WMF action, just to show how independent Commons is - but it's still bad.
There needs to be effort to improve the editing environment for all around here, and I doubt if Eric can play any part in any such "teenage boy idiot amelioration task force" (the problem comes from the 4chan culture of those starting it, not the gender of their favoured targets). That's still a long way from blaming Eric for the problem though, as has just happened here. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:55, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
  • This is not accurate. Although I have heard that the comments from Sarah Stierch were taken from a two-year-old interview, I was interviewed for this in August. As for fact checking with me, the journalist sent me the two small sections in which I was directly mentioned to check them for errors before publishing. I was able to correct a small error in one of them before the article was published, but I was not given the entire draft. GorillaWarfare (talk) 15:17, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
  • I believe it would be extraordinarily unusual for you to have been shown a draft of the entire article prior to publication. MarkBernstein (talk) 15:50, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Obviously it would be hard for them to pre-write an article before the events described, but it does have the feeling of something where parts of it were written in one context and parts in a much later one. It's odd (and poor) though that Eric was given no opportunity to check or reply, even though you were. It's a bad article and unbalanced against Eric - he's not an admin, he has very little responsibility for anything that happens here beyond his own actions, yet describing him as an admin labels him as jointly culpable for any failures of site management.Andy Dingley (talk) 16:35, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Well, it looks like it's had the intended result (even if it did have to involve reaching out to an ex-Arb who's blocked no-one since 2014 to actually perform the block), so I'm guessing everyone involved must be really happy. Well done, everyone! Black Kite (talk) 17:24, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
  • I think Wikipedia is taking some serious chances here. Corbett wrote comments defending himself after a very misleading representation of his actions in a major magazine. Instead of letting his rebuttal be heard, Wikipedia has blocked him through a high-level decision based on a ban on speaking about gender disparities, and his replies have been removed as "comments of a blocked user" [34] to the effect that he never used the word "cunt" to describe any woman. To me it looks like you've loaded him full up with false light and libel claims, and since the Atlantic is involved, there could end up being a huge amount of money in this. Wikipedia seriously needs to step back from the brink here, NOW. I'm not saying you have to unblock him but for God's sake try to stop portraying him as someone who calls women cunts to make them feel bad. Wnt (talk) 10:25, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
    • Indeed, I am not happy about his replies to accusations/comments about him being removed - especially as he made them before he was blocked. His later comments were a violation of his topic ban, but personally I regard his putting the record straight as being an allowable exception. Thryduulf (talk) 10:35, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
This block might, in fact, be a reaction to The Atlantic article and claims that Wikipedia doesn't take harassment seriously. But a block of Eric Corbett will not solve the problem of making Wikipedia a less hostile environment. Liz Read! Talk! 10:52, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
Well, precisely Liz, because Eric is not the person who is abusing female editors here. However, it is clear that certain people needed that block after the last one failed spectacularly, so we find ourselves here. I'm sure they're very proud of themselves, but I equally suspect that it might come back to bite them. Black Kite (talk) 17:33, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

To be fair to The Atlantic, Eric Corbet did call her a cunt. Saying "If you don't want to be called a cunt, don't act like one" is calling someone a cunt. Pretending otherwise is sleazy, puerile sophistry. Eric, if you don't want to be called a pathetic little shit-stirring troll, don't act like one. Eric has announced for the fourteenth time (really, fourteen; Hex at WO counted) that he's leaving for good because of this gross injustice that's been done to him. Sure Eric. And the sycophants and sexists are all mewling on his talk page. Mewl sycophants, mewl. Do it enough and he just might relent. Again. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 11:09, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

The full statement that came from is linked earlier in that thread, and in context its clear that Lightbreather is not meant to be the referent of "you". Eric was arguing against the idea of civility as a policy, and it's pretty obviously a generic you. Rhoark (talk) 13:38, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
Ugh. True. Thank you. Struck. I was involved in that discussion but haven't read it since. Eric just threw a c-bomb into the civility discussion. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 14:00, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
I'm sure you've said something yourself at one time in the heat of the moment. Do people continue to attack you for it years on and attack you in major magazines about it? Do you not think that Eric might actually have feelings like other human beings and that he'd be expected to defend himself here?♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:08, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
I tend to own it when I do. The issue here is his "Oh, I didn't call her a cunt" nonsense. As for not wanting to be called a sexist troll in an international journal, if you don't want ... Never mind. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 12:18, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
There are men who genuinely hate or abuse women and vice versa. Eric certainly doesn't fit the bill. Most of the people he's worked with on here have been female, and most of them think very highly of him. The Atlantic conveniently forgot to mention that. In fact I'd argue that Eric gets on better with female editors generally speaking than male editors. He doesn't like the gender gap project and militant feminist types on here, they turn me cold too, but this serial abuser of women he aint.♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:32, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
I realise the different usages of "cunt" on either side of the Atlantic but, according to his own good advice, if you don't want to be called one, don't act like one, and he was acting like a misogynist from the perspective of our American colleagues. I know he gets on fine with some of the women who thrive here. I've thought all along he's the wrong target for an anti-misogyny campaign. Choosing him as the poster boy for such a campaign sets you up for failure. He's an equal opportunity insulter and belittler and should be sanctioned, appropriately, for insulting and belittling, regardless of the sex or gender of the target. Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 12:55, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Personally, I'm just glad that Wikipedia has a large contingent of men who are have expert opinions on misogyny. 👌👌 Sceptre (talk) 11:18, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

My irony meter just broke.213.205.251.206 (talk) 12:44, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Additionally, the irony of this whole issue is that we, of course, have multiple reliable sources saying that Wikipedia has a misogyny problem but we've got tons of original research in every discussion about how there isn't. 🐸☕ Sceptre (talk) 13:10, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

There are multiple issues here. The issue at hand is the block of an editor who defended himself against what he felt were unfair attacks against him. The humane, kind procedure would have been to warn him, a very simple way to proceed. As a community if we implicitely give permission to block in this kind of situation - to allow ourselves to behave with out kindness and fairness because an editor is not liked by some - we erode our own collaborative system. We aren't bots; we can judge and detect the necessary checks and balances which make the system work, but which as well pertain to dealing with other human beings. I respect Kirill but I think this was a mistake. OK. End of rant.(Littleolive oil (talk) 13:37, 23 October 2015 (UTC))
LO's argument is that Corbett wasn't warned. I say that a topic ban from ArbCom and 5 previous blocks this year are enough warning. Enough is enough. Smallbones(smalltalk) 14:44, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
Corbett knows not to stick his oar in; he's very deliberately skirting his arbitration restriction. Sceptre (talk) 14:26, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
@Kirill Lokshin: has been doing a lot of assessments lately, generally not really high-profile editing. On that basis, I think it is certainly possible that he saw the comment here on his own, but I think it would make sense that if we are going to discuss his actions that maybe we give him a chance to get involved, which is why I am pinging him. If there were outside factors which we aren't privy to, that might be worthwhile noting as well. John Carter (talk) 14:34, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
There are multiple issues here. Lightbreather, the most recent Corbett "Cunt" comment recipient, was also trying to defend herself from attacks but, Arbcom decided, rules are rules & she ended up with a 1 year ban. During that process (& leading up to it) more than a few strident Corbett-istas seemed to be pursuing a 'Burn the Witch!' agenda against Lighbreather (& CarolMoore - also now banned) all the while insisting 'There's no sexism on Wikipedia'. Multiple issues indeed! The 'oh but what about poor Eric' mantra is a very tired old tune. AnonNep (talk) 14:45, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
Yet another one who states that Corbett's "cunt" comment was about Lightbreather. It wasn't. You may note the people above who have struck their comments. Re-stating it over and over again doesn't make it any more true. Stop, please. Black Kite (talk) 17:42, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
I didn't say he called her a "cunt". I chose the phrase '"Cunt" comment recipient' for a reason. AnonNep (talk) 01:25, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
  • The journalist in question has performed shoddy reporting by only asking one side of the story for feedback before publishing. Under U.S. law, the press has certain freedoms that protect it from litigation so long as they try to get the story right, even if the end result is less than 100% correct. Nevertheless, regardless of what anyone feels, Corbett has been denied due process in our court here on this matter by not being allowed to voice his disagreement and or rebuttal of what was published in The Atlantic.--MONGO 15:59, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
"Corbett has been denied due process in our court" - That's total horsefeathers, Mongo. A topic ban from arbcom and 5 previous blocks this year. Smallbones(smalltalk) 16:14, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
I'm talking about this incident where he was incorrectly called an administrator and where his infamous comment was once again taken out of context. That "news" piece is simply shoddy journalism and by denying Corbett the right to rebut the inaccuracies is denying him due process.--MONGO 16:25, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
Due process does not mean infinite process. Enough is enough. Due process is meant to protect *all of us*. He clearly defied his topic ban, again. He got blocked, again. That's due process. Smallbones(smalltalk) 17:27, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
Horseshit. That's a kangaroo court for you.--MONGO 18:01, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm not too happy it was implied that I only filed the case against LB because I've collaborated with Eric in the past. The author did not attempt to speak to me either. Karanacs (talk) 16:49, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Two wrongs do not make a right. Further, this is not a "poor Eric" comment; this is an "extend fairness to everyone no matter who or we will be poorer as a community" comment. An editor, and I don't care who, was accused of actions, rightly or wrongly, that were pretty foul and he tried to defend himself. He could have been warned that he had said enough and that speaking further would be blockable. That's it. Simple and fair. Nothing is lost by warning editors and nothing is gained by blocking with out a warning unless the intent is to catch somebody in a moment when their guard is down. Everyone should be warned specific to the blockable action, always. As for Lightbreather. What WP does not have is a good appeal process for either arbitration or AE, one in which every aspect of a case is reviewed. An editor who feels they have been mistreated has no recourse. And believe me blocks and sanctions can be applied without any good reason because editors are not liked; the system as we have it now breeds false narratives and railroading. This is why I would extend fairness to everyone not just those we "like". Had Eric continued to post after being warned then he clearly was pushing the boundaries of his ban. Now all we know is that an admin assumed he was deliberately bypassing the restrictions. We should never assume where building false narratives is a norm on this site because every time we do we further the effectiveness of railroading and the creation of " stories". An unfairness here strengthens the possibility for larger mistakes elsewhere. (Littleolive oil (talk) 16:51, 23 October 2015 (UTC))
I am not one of Eric's biggest fans, but I do see two problems with this block. 1) Jimbos page is generally a safe space, where even fully community banned editors have been able to come and speak. 2) This thread was largely about Eric. Its rehashing old things mostly, but I think philosophically it should fall into WP:BANEX. For these reasons I think a warning/trout/ignore were probably a better path. On the other hand, Eric has quite often flaunted the ban intentionally, and his fan club on here and on his page are certainly performing true to form with the gnashing of teeth, rending of garments, etc. Gaijin42 (talk) 16:58, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
For the record; I have had one interaction with Eric and it was not pleasant so perhaps we can stop with the Eric fan club assumptions. The point is about neutrality and scrupulous fairness when dealing with everyone.(Littleolive oil (talk) 17:02, 23 October 2015 (UTC))
Littleolive oil I didn't mention you, nor was I thinking of you in my comment, but as the bard says "The lady doth protest too much, methinks" Gaijin42 (talk) 18:43, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
Also, I am unsure why you changed the indenting of my comment to make it appear I was replying to you, when I was not. [35] Gaijin42 (talk) 18:46, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

I apologize . I indented because you had not. I had no intention but to make the indent easier to deal with. Please feel free to undo my edit.(Littleolive oil (talk) 19:40, 23 October 2015 (UTC))

Corbett has had enough bias in his favour to last him a life-time. Any admin who reversed an AE block on any other person would be desysopped within the night, not retroactively cleared of wrongdoing to protect the encyclopaedia's Designated Dissenter. Sceptre (talk) 17:17, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
Well, you'd know plenty about being desysopped (and banned, for that matter). Wouldn't you? Black Kite (talk) 18:59, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
Many, many editors (including yours truly) have been blocked for venturing to participate when they and their work were being discussed on this page. The difference between those editors and Eric Corbett is that the other editors were volunteers without fan clubs, and the safety of this “safe space” is reserved for those with power and privilege. Little people ought instead to lower their profile. MarkBernstein (talk) 17:22, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
I think when you are being discussed in international media and ts framed to discredit an exception should be made. A large problem here though is EC supporters. Every time he does something boneheaded and the bum rush starts I devalues its effect. Used appropriately it is a powerful tool but misused it further taints. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 18:18, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
@MarkBernstein: My comment above has nothing to do with fan clubs. If I get in an argument with someone about the death penalty and he says "if you don't want to get lethally injected, don't kill people," is that an accusation of murder? Corbett ticked people off by abusing Jimbo, and they were mad, that is understandable. That doesn't justify trying to make him out as the face of sexism on Wikipedia. When you deny him the right even to dispute that, you're really asking for trouble. And the problem I have here is that if Arbcom's centralized control ends up meaning that the "safe harbor" CDA provisions don't protect Wikipedia and the WMF is being told to pay hundreds of thousands in damages, we are not going to hear Arbitrators eating crow, saying that their system failed, we should go back to all editors being equal, no more deleted versions or oversighting or blocking, just editors exercising mass democracy like a giant editable 4chan. No, before the opposing lawyers they've invited in with their actions have even finished totting up the bill, they'll be telling us the answer is more centralized control. They'll get in some suit as a consultant for a few hundred thou and he'll page through a few discussions and tell us the answer is we have to hire some other suit he used to play squash with at Yale to decide what people can say or not, what we can articles about or not. And so on. It'll not work at ending the lawsuits, but it will open doors for companies that know the right people. Wnt (talk) 19:01, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
  • I note that Kirill has still not enlightened us as to whom instructed him to block Corbett. It's obvious from his editing and admin history that he didn't suddenly decide to appear at AE for the first time himself, which leaves us with a smaller pool of suspects. Anyone? Black Kite (talk) 19:09, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
  • So it is, but that's really nothing new. For the record, I do keep an eye on discussions that take place on this page, even if I generally have better things to do with my time than trying to wade into them. Kirill Lokshin (talk) 19:16, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
  • For the record Eric's block lasted a day, he is now unblocked by another admin. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 19:37, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

The Atlantic messed up, and now an inaccurate meme is being spread further. Corbett did have a right to defend himself on this one, as false information was being spread. I agree with the statement that "Eric certainly doesn't fit the bill" as a man who hates or abuses women, and yes, "he's the wrong target for an anti-misogyny campaign" kudos to the person who said, "WM certainly has a problem around women, there is a problem with Eric, but these are not the same problem." It's odd, I am both a pretty strong feminist and simultaneously a member of the so-called "Corbett fan club." I am neither a "syncophant" nor (obviously) a "sexist" - a nod to Anthonyhcole for understanding "c-gate" in its proper context. Corbett is too curmudgeonly at times, but people also shouldn't bait him and keep the false meme alive that he's some sort of misogynist troll. He is defended by the "fan club" not when he insults people, but when he gets targeted for things he didn't do. He's a scapegoat because he keeps coming back. Montanabw(talk) 20:06, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

as an aside to the above, one problem that contributes to this mixup is that some individuals use their status in a protected class as a sword instead of a shield—The wounds of Lightbreather and CMDC were, sad to say, mostly self-inflicted. The problem wasn't sexism, at least not initially. The problem was they didn't look at their own grenade-lobbing —For example, when I made a rather pointed suggestion about how the GGTF could do a better job, CMDC attacked me rather viciously and implied I was a "man telling us what to do." I also tried a couple times to help Lightbreather, but finally gave up because I just couldn't get through the wall of outrage Lightbreather had built. Ideology is not the same as biology, and sociology exists to determine the difference. (sigh) Montanabw(talk) 20:06, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
Bravo, Montanabw. This is probably the most sensible thing said during the discussion so far, which I suppose is why it's gotten no response.
Trying to synthesize the various anecdotes recounted here, I think it's fair to say that 1) editors in general who work on things that are non-controversial by and large don't get harassed, sexually or otherwise and 2) female editors who carry out "controversial" and high-profile actions are subjected to a degree of abuse that male editors are not, because their gender is perceived as being an opening for attack in a way that it is not for males. (I haven't seen it discussed much, but I would tend to assume that the same is true for openly LGBT editors doing the same.)
I'm using the word "controversial" in a morally neutral sense here to mean, roughly, "anything that's going to stir up a large number of people." Sometimes, those actions that stir people up are good and necessary for the encyclopedia, and need to be done. That's why the idea that female editors should keep their heads down and not carry them out is unreasonable; some of the people the community most trusts to do these things are women, and they should not be expected to endure harassment vastly in excess of that experienced by their male colleagues in so doing. On the other hand, sometimes those actions stir people up because they're, well, wrong. Lightbreather was a terrible editor: a perusal of the evidence page from the ArbCom case that banned her will quickly reveal that she was unable to constructively acknowledge views that differed from hers, and regularly sought out personal quarrels with other editors. Her quarrelsomeness does not justify her harassment, but neither does her harassment justify her escaping sanction for her own misbehavior, as some have suggested above. I think part of the reason some people are still locked in harassment-is-not-a-thing mode is because of the tacit suggestion that if harassment was acknowledged, it would grant general absolution to the person being harassed. Choess (talk) 17:50, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
I think that Eric Corbett has been unfairly scapegoated to the extent that he has become an unwitting symbol of these kinds of problems on the encyclopedia. But he and many members of his "fan club" are largely to blame for this (though you are not one of them, to my knowledge), as they are the ones loudly obstructing attempts to deal with the problems not caused by Corbett, and a number of them harass anyone who even suggests that Corbett be held accountable for what he has actually done. Gamaliel (talk) 18:03, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
I think Eric's insistence on speaking his own mind exactly as he pleases, without fear or favor, is admirable in many contexts, but isn't really a virtue in the collaborative environment. So, not a "fan club" member, but I'm afraid I have a rather cynical take on the business: Eric's been designated Chief Misogynist precisely because he's representative of much more complex phenomena in Wikipedia (authority, the balance between content creation and communication) which aren't going to disappear in a hurry. So if he can be labeled a misogynist, his refusal to recant and the existence of support for him can all become "evidence" that Wikipedia is in the grip of sexists and justification for increasingly disruptive actions against them.
I haven't followed closely enough to see who's in favor of what solution to the gendergap, but it's worth remembering that the "fan club" exists in large part because of the way the civility policy has been weaponized to further personal feuds. If people working on this choose to bypass the hard problems (technical, legal) in favor of aggressive tone policing (easy within the current infrastructure), I'd say they stand a good chance of making many people here roll their eyes at "sexism" the way they do now at "civility". What you see as obstructionism may actually be institutional memory telling you that people have tried analogous things and run into big problems. Choess (talk) 12:54, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
Agree with most of the above from Montana to Gamaliel above. And I could add a few other names who might inspire a degree of knee-jerk responses of the "but s/he's a [good editor]" variety. I think there are a few lightning rod editors who basically just give some people, both the knee-jerk attackers and knee-jerk defenders, something to do which makes them feel useful and lets them think that they have done something positive by making comments. Finding some way to basically get rid of the enablers of all sorts and dramah mongers would be wonderful. John Carter (talk) 20:03, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

No editor should be placed under any gag order, IMHO. Being restricted from talkpages (particularly your own) should be discouraged. GoodDay (talk) 14:02, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

So this is still alive. Earlier in this thread (since deleted) Corbett said, *Let's be clear about this. The only person I've ever called a cunt on WP is Jimbo, who I have every reason to believe is not a female." I'll just pop this here:

  • I can think immediately of many admins who appear to be proper and honest human beings. Unfortunately though I can think of far more who appear to be dishonest cunts. Malleus Fatuorum 03:38, 21 December 2011 (UTC) [36]
  • You are so much a fucking cunt Spitfire. Malleus Fatuorum 04:52, 22 December 2011 (UTC) [37]
  • If you don't want to be called a cunt Gaijin42 then don't act like one. Eric Corbett 14:57, 29 October 2013 (UTC) [38]
  • How many of you stupid cunts are there? Eric Corbett 03:50, 5 December 2013 (UTC) [39]
  • I see, you're the cunt I always thought you were. Eric Corbett 01:46, 28 May 2014 (UTC) [40]
  • ... it's very unlikely that you'll provoke me into calling you a cunt – even though I may think that you are – and hence giving you the opportunity to have me blocked. Do we understand each other? Eric Corbett 14:23, 17 August 2014 (UTC) [41]
  • Jimbo Wales is a dishonest cunt of the highest order. Eric Corbett 23:39 14 October 2014 (UTC) [42]

And above I struck my claim that Corbett had called Lightbreather a cunt. If I could unstrike those comments without confusing the narrative, I would. I thought he had started his comment on the left margin, so was addressing the readers in general, but Eric indented his "cunt" comment once, [43] so he was addressing the OP, Lightbreather.. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 09:34, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

What is your objective here in keeping this going? CassiantoTalk 09:43, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
Correcting the record, of course. Corbett lied in those posts. Corbett is a dishonest ... Well, you finish the sentence. I love the way you "free speech" advocates try to shut down any speech you don't like. So hypocritical. So trollish. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 09:53, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
Free speech has nothing to do with this. Why don't you go and review a GAN instead of wasting your efforts trying to resuscitate this dead horse. CassiantoTalk 11:48, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
Of course it has. You're trying to shut down this conversation. Because you don't like it. I point out what a dishonest sexist troll your hero is and you can't bear to hear it.
By the way, he is a dishonest sexist troll. In compiling that list of abuse, I read a lot of discussions about "cunt" involving your hero. He knew the way "cunt" is read across the Atlantic when he threw it at Lightbreather. He is a disruptive, sexist troll and you are his useful slavering lickspittle. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 14:28, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
Has it ever occurred to you that you might be coming across as a bit of a cunt yourself? CassiantoTalk 15:27, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

So what would happen if someone called Eric a cunt? Does it matter that he's a "man"? Would that make it ok? 109.144.166.87 (talk) 09:57, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm sure Eric has been called a lot worse in his time here. Generally, if someone is called "a cunt" then they are inevitably behaving like one. If the cap fits, wear it. CassiantoTalk 11:51, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
Generally, if someone is called a cunt, they're being addressed by a troglodyte. But I guess even troglodytes get it right sometimes.[44] Ask Corbett if he got it right when he called Spitfire a fucking cunt. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 14:18, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
What are you trying to prove in linking to a previous comment where I told a well known troll to fuck off? I'm not in the least bit ashamed about doing that and would do it again in a heartbeat; care for me to test that theory out? CassiantoTalk 15:20, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
Has he really? Do tell us when and what. So no possibility "hidden or disguised cunts", then? But you did not answer the questions. 31.55.95.237 (talk) 13:31, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

An apologetic note to the women who've received abuse

While I still believe that it's a malicious article and I think it's in poor taste to create a storm here, and that there are certain people on here who relish this sort of thing for their agenda/Eric bashing, not to mention certain editors above who seem to enjoy turning the tables and treating me as one of the culprits (which was disgusting), I admit to being a bit too sure of myself on how women might be treated on here as it is a big site and there's over 200 other wikipedias. I did ask about half a dozen women editors out of curiosity a while back and none of them stated that they'd ever had a problem on wikipedia with it, and I have been here since 2006 and have never seen anything, except a comment directed at Rational observer a while back. So I certainly got the impression that it was an imaginary problem and that serious levels of abuse don't occur, distinguished from the typical bullying and nasty comments regularly delivered on here. However, since I have received several emails indicating that at recent events dozens of women have spoken up about the problem and that in fact most of the women in places have reported abuse. And not just from the more aggressive/admin type editors, from regular women who identify as a woman and produce content here. I did not know this, as I never see it happen on here and I've been here almost ten years, and I've not been to events where editors discuss this sort of thing. I do wish that blatant sexist abuse on here was reported and that the problem was made more visible without embarrassing those who are targetted, particularly if from regulars, and that women editors are respected enough to be given positions on here without being targeted. I think some of the things I said were taken out of context, particularly that women should have to hide behind a veil. I don't think that, but I do think that there needs to be something in place to stop it happening to the more vulnerable editors who do some of the administrative activities on here, perhaps a spam filter would help I don't know. So basically I'm saying, I respect that many women on here have encountered problems, and certainly don't want to diminish that, abuse is abuse, but I certainly still think that this sort of thing is the wrong way to raise awareness and bring about an improvement and comes across as offensive to some of us male editors who treat women well on here. We are not all officious, sexist pigs, and should not generalize about all editors, that's largely which struck a raw nerve with me here. However, something needs to change to try to reduce the embarrassment that women might get in reporting cases on here as it seems many of the cases which are reported or unreported many of us regulars don't really know about, so we can't take action or defend those who do get it because we don't know.♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:07, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for posting this. We're not all going to agree on everything, but sincere attempts like this one to see other people's points of view are the way we can work towards solving the problems facing the encyclopedia and community. Gamaliel (talk) 17:17, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
I don't think women should have to hide, either, but we should be honest about the inability of wmf / en-wiki to do very much about abuse from offside. NE Ent 17:18, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
That's very big of you Blofeld. I hope you now realize that denying the gender gap is in itself sexist. RO(talk) 17:27, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
Uhh, no, sexism is "prejudice, stereotyping, or discrimination, typically against women, on the basis of sex." — That's the first definition to come up on Google, and I'm buying it. It's neither prejudicial, sterotyping, or discriminatory to "deny the gender gap" — that would be empirically dubious, at best, in fact clearly wrong. But that would not be sexism, that would be failure to look at evidence but instead clinging to previously-held beliefs in the face of scientific and anecdotal evidence. (The science is lousy and the gap is overstated, mind you.) Carrite (talk) 17:42, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
I disagree, Carrite, and several recent pieces about racism support my point: ([45]). In its lightest form, sexism denies or invalidates the feelings of the oppressed, so denying that sexism exists is indeed an element of sexism, because it negates valid beliefs in an effort to squelch discussion of the problem. If you want to get really semantical, it might be more accurate to say that denying sexism enables the problem to continue, even if it's not blatantly sexist. RO(talk) 17:57, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
RO is sadly trolling, looking for attention/an angry response I think Carrite. Best ignored. I don't fall for it. Considering that I've been involved with running a project which has started 3000 new women biographies I'd hardly call myself ignorant of the imbalance.♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:01, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
I'm not trolling Blofeld, but wow you sure know how to hold a grudge! Very mature of you! By Carrite's logic, a Holocaust denier is not necessarily anti-Semitic (and no, I'm not comparing sexism to the Holocaust). RO(talk) 18:15, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
You do realize that you just equated the gender imbalance of Wikipedia editors with fascist genocide, don't you? Your pious and disingenuous disclaimer notwithstanding, that's exactly what you did. Kudos to Dr. B for the correct ID...... Carrite (talk) 23:23, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
@Dr. Blofeld: a project which has started 3,000 new women biographies? Where do we sign-up? 👏 😃 Atsme📞📧 17:20, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
(ec) Dr. Blofeld, I don't remember if you asked me. I am open about being a woman but never felt I was abused because of that. Compliments to the male and female editors I encounter, including Eric who was always polite to me, and yourself, - not dwelling on occasional outbursts which I will remember only on Halloween ;) - I have been called funny names and asked to "better conduct themselves" but not because I am female. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:30, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
Thank you, Dr, Blofeld for this post. I truly appreciate you being open minded about the issue. Sydney Poore/FloNight♥♥♥♥ 17:42, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
Dr Blofeld, thank you for the post. I am glad you were able to take on board some of the criticism you got here and to be willing to post this. It shows good character. Cheers. JbhTalk 18:05, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Thank you, @Dr. Blofeld. This means a lot to me. I am proud to call you my friend. --Rosiestep (talk) 18:27, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Same here. Sincerely. RO(talk) 18:59, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for this post, Dr. Blofeld. GorillaWarfare (talk) 20:47, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

@Dr. Blofeld: thanks for this post. One of the reason why many cases of what I would clearly call sexist abuse never come forward is because many of the women being abused have seen what happens to many of those who do come forward. I made a comment during Danielle Citron's Q&A about receiving upwards of twenty emails a week from women who edit (and often either are significant content contributors, or would lke to be,) but who are deterred from continuing editing because of the abuse thrown their direction. Some of the emails I receive are definitely misguided, and although my email queue is often that high it certainly isn't always - but I do receive a large number of emails involving situations I think you would agree just aren't okay. Unfortunately, we have very limited resources to provide them with most of the time, since a lot of the internal processes we can point them to would result in them being put through (to steal a phrase) a 'cultural buzzsaw,' even with the help of experienced Wikimedians, and generally the bandwidth of both myself and the other volunteers I could enlist to try to help in particular situations is, unfortunately, extremely limited. Kevin Gorman (talk) 23:50, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Well said. Though I think the more important point is that experiential evidence isn't held against the editor experiencing it. This place is currently trying to hang people for the simple crime of interacting with women as though they were any other editor without thought to any significance of their sex behind it. Which is what we all want. And it seems Blofield has been doing that for a long time. Now hopefully he sees how bad it can be for women here (and everywhere honestly) that are at the mercy of people that don't share his view. But the view we want expounded here is his view. Capeo (talk) 00:25, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

There is a vast difference between acting without regard to gender and acting as if everyone is male. Your idea of "interacting with women as though they were any other editor without thought to any significance of their sex behind it" seems to be 'just assume everyone is male and do not consider they might not be' and is the very definition of a sexist environment. The professional, or even just not 'locker-room', way to handle anonymous interaction is to assume everyone is of the opposite gender because even if they are not someone reading your comments is. It is really not that hard. JbhTalk 21:44, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Have you improved an article on a woman today?

The gender gap exists and cannot be denied. I had a dream, that we would do better fighting / closing / filling it if we'd write and improve more articles on women. One is pictured on the Main page now, hook idea by me: ... that Emilie von Berlepsch (pictured) described herself as "fighting against the prejudice that wants to grant women neither a will of their own nor the courage to express it"?. I will take care of Trudeliese Schmidt today. Read Enid Blyton for an example. Invite to the approach. More: WP:QAIPOST#Articles on women

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:19, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your work! GorillaWarfare (talk) 08:22, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
Agreed. The Enid Blyton FA mentioned is a nice piece of work. From the page edit stats it appears two editors have done the lion's share of the work. Perhaps we should thank them too? DeCausa (talk) 10:26, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
Articles about women who turn out to be notable turn up at CAT:CSD when they shouldn't all the time. Some I remember saving are Ruth Guler, Naomi Sager, Bex Marshall and probably a few more. If I spot another one today to improve, and have time to do so, I will! To be perfectly blunt, I feel some sort of moral duty to help improve the gender gap this way - if women do not like Wikipedia's environment, those like me who can put up with it should try and fill the gaps they would have contributed to. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:55, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
I'll certainly get down to that. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:05, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

What do think of writing a stub on a woman for every post to an AN board? Or: instead of that post? At least a start class article for an entry in an arbitration request? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:40, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Keeping up with AN would be impressive. Keeping up with ArbCom requests would be more doable. I paid my penance for the most recent case today and yesterday. GorillaWarfare (talk) 08:44, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
Jimbo is not a feminist activist, if you are , go write and encourage your pov but don't expect neutral editors to join in with your position Govindaharihari (talk) 08:49, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
Must one be a feminist activist to write about a woman? GorillaWarfare (talk) 09:04, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
The two main editors of Enid Blyton are male, so is the main editor of Emilie von Berlepsch, - thanks to them! I have been called many things (see a little higher) but not yet a feminist ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:16, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
I like to work for a project where gender doesn't matter, half of the active members are known to be female, and one has the closing words in the infamous article which brought us here: "... have created hundreds of articles for missing female scientists, and they have thousands more to go. 'A lot of the women I work with on Wikipedia really care about making these biographies accessible on the web, because you know, if it’s not on Wikipedia it doesn’t exist. These women need to be written back into history.'" --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:55, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
...not forgetting the main editor's of Marie Lloyd and Hattie Jacques. CassiantoTalk 09:24, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
...or, indeed, the main writer of Haim. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:20, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
I wonder if an article about Carolyn Doran would count? - 2001:558:1400:10:CD87:E5D5:4F2E:9F05 (talk) 13:30, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
Gerda Arendt, I like it as a general principle; an aspirational goal for editors looking to increase the coverage of women in the encyclopedia. Certainly one that I would look to take onboard, as I have with the Have you improved an article on a woman today? suggestion.
However, I am not sure about it as an enshrined & encoded policy or procedure. I think we want open access to the AN boards regardless of editing topic, and would not like to see a restriction on that basis.
Or perhaps it is a concern that even with the many and multiple millions of notable women that we have available to us for new articles, we might still not have enough for the amount of chaff that we churn through on the Dramah boards... wait... actually... could we make it 10 stubs per comment? - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 21:58, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
No rules, no principles (although I like the principles of "kindness, generosity, forgiveness and compassion" proclaimed here last year), just the thought that improving content about women would be a better way to fight the gender gap than arguments on noticeboards, resulting in bans and blocks. Did you know that I went to ANI only once this year, fighting for talk page access for a user who was wrongly blocked? I then translated an article. I like to work for a project (see above) where we care about contributions, not blocklog. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:31, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
I made a template for the kindness principle also, what I wrote here last year, but anybody who feels the same is free to adopt it, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:26, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Atlantic rebuttal?

Putting aside all disputes regarding EC, does Jimbo or WMF plan to write a rebuttal to the Atlantic pointing out the many factual inaccuracies in the article? Mztourist (talk) 11:08, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

There are two possibilities of rebuttal. A first possibility will say that WP is the best workplace ever, so that Atlantic is a bunch of craps (what that damned people have to hide for lying so hard). A second possibility will say that the core of the paper is right, while the details are wrong (better backing the opinion piece will give it more strength). Which one is your prefered horse ? Pldx1 (talk) 13:16, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
So far there have been no other news agencies that are coming forward and saying "Yeah the Atlantic is right" I wouldn't worry too much about it. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:31, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

The minor errors in the Atlantic article have been corrected; those superficial details are of interest to Wikipedia insiders alone. The larger picture is clear: Wikipedia is open to harassment -- especially sexual harassment, to bullying, and to extortion. Gamaliel’s superb editorial in The Signpost is Wikipedia's best reaction, although some of the comments are deeply embarrassing to the project. MarkBernstein (talk) 13:59, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

  • Mark is correct, and furthermore the WMF submitting a rebuttal is out of their scope, would endanger their CDA protections, and would be unlikely to happen anyway. I also significantly doubt Jimbo would submit a rebuttal either. Most errors in the article are trivial to any outsider and have been corrected. @Knowledgekid: as a former comms professional and current rabblerouser (though not in the context of Wikipedia,) trust me, other outlets will cover the Atlantic's take, and many outlets have published similar takes before. Kevin Gorman (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:39, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Four of the "minor" errors are corrected. At least another four are extant. And they may be minor, in the sense that the exact name of the article that wasn't deleted doesn't greatly matter, but it does suggest that the author did precisely zero fact checking, and knew precisely nothing about Wikipedia.
In this context the article is worth the paper its printed on.
All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 00:33, 27 October 2015 (UTC).
If there is going to be a rebuttal, I think the best place to place it would be in the Wikipedia:Signpost,and possibly involve those individuals who have identified as being consulted in the article and how much, if any, of the material they can identify as coming from them. That might make it easier to identify what material may have come from "unidentified" editors, who, potentially, might carry rather a bit of a drudge? And, if there might be material in the article that no active editor would be willing to indicate they provided, that might be some basis for perhaps indicating that the source might be, perhaps, some banned, disgruntled editors. John Carter (talk) 00:41, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
"might make it easier to identify what material may have come from "unidentified" editors, who, potentially, might carry rather a bit of a drudge" - what a fucking ridiculous comment. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:58, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
One of the most obvious ones is the link that indicated people would "fight to the death" (in quotations) Lightbreather's proposal. Considering it is in quotes, it presumably came from someone, although, interestingly, the phrase does not appear as a phrase in the page linked to even once. John Carter (talk) 18:14, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
I agree with User:Rich Farmbrough, some minor errors have been corrected, but some major ones haven't, including the fact that EC's c*** comment wasn't directed at Lightbreather and that Lighbreather received her 1 year ban due to her editting on gun-related topics and not anything to do with gender issues. Add to this the overall lack of balance of just interviewing a few editors and the whole piece makes it sound like this is a misogynist haven. Mztourist (talk) 03:53, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
There won't be a rebuttal because the main point of the errors is someone who's not considered of value to the wider Wikipedia community. Had it been, say, Jimbo, rebuttals would have been forthcoming with haste. Intothatdarkness 18:31, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps the best way to not sound like this is a misogynist haven is not to be a haven for misogyny. MarkBernstein (talk) 17:46, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

So MarkBernstein you are saying that Wikipedia is a haven for misogyny? Please prove it. Mztourist (talk) 03:24, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
Perhaps the best way to not sound like a supercilious [deleted] is not to make comments that lead others to that conclusion.John Carter (talk) 18:14, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
Directing disgusting sexist and misogynistic comments at a man is no less repulsive than directing disgusting sexist and misogynistic comments at a woman. You are disgusting. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 20:03, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
Honestly, RedPen, thank you for engaging in grossly irrelevant criticism of others. Your disgusting refusal to notice that the comment you are criticizing in no way made any sort of "sexist and misogynistic" comment of the kind you accused it of, basically, only really demonstrates what some might call your own disgusting, prejudicial rushes to judgment about others, clearly, in this case, extending to hurling disgusting insults which, basically, have no basis in reality. You are, perhaps, beyond disgusting, showing what some might call disgusting self-righteousness blinded to reality by its own arrogance. John Carter (talk) 01:10, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
oh, please. your not-at-all-veiled call-back of the infamous cunt comment is absolutely inappropriate, disgusting and misogynistic. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 02:36, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
Wait, how was it a call-back? I just checked the logs, and JohnCarter himself included the "[deleted]" bit in his original post. You seem to be arguing that any self-censoring is obviously a veiled reference to the 'infamous comment' that started this Charlie Foxtrot, which (just as obviously) makes it a disgusting misogynistic attack. Whereas I thought it clear that "[deleted]" was (in this as in most cases) JohnCarter's attempt at self-censoring in the midst of his obvious frustration that someone (namely, MarkBernstein) could be so bullheaded. Perhaps people would take these allegations of sexism and misogyny more seriously, if you weren't so damnably eager to hurl such allegations around without any basis in fact. Your words literally disprove their own argument. I'd laugh if it weren't so frustrating. PublicolaMinor (talk) 07:19, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
Y'all are perty funny usin' all dem big werds. Nyth63 00:20, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

I just want you all to know that the fennec fox is uniquely adapted to its desert environment. With its efficient kidneys and light fur, it minimizes water loss, and dissipates excess heat with its large ears. It is also particularly cute. Keilana (talk) 03:24, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Gender

It's always going to be a balancing act, where gender equality is concerned. See this article Enabling, where a referenced sentence gives an example of an "addict Husband". I'm assuming there's such a thing as an addict Wife, too. This example could be seen as biased, by some. GoodDay (talk) 15:04, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

As you seem to have realized, the sentence in question is part of a quotation, and thus the word choice is that of the source, not of Wikipedians. As such, it seems like a poor example of Wikipedian anti-male gender bias, or whatever you intended it to demonstrate. MastCell Talk 16:42, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
My point is, some may consider the choice of using that part of a quotation, as being biased. GoodDay (talk) 16:46, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
Are you familiar with the full source? Although I'd agree it's not an ideal source, there's not really an equivalent sentence in it about wives. Kevin Gorman (talk) 17:42, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
The quote "you may fear your [addict] husband will lose his job" is a good for illustrating how prejudice can be read into text. And MastCell's uncertainty over GoodDay's meaning shows that it is not fanciful.
  • Interpretation 1: The text stereotypes males as addicts, and is part of the demonisation of men.
  • Interpretation 2: The text stereotypes females as enablers, and implicitly blames the bad actions of the man on the woman - a classic example of victim blaming!
And of course the reader of the above will doubtless realise that the comparison is itself heteronormatively biased, assuming the the "husband" has a wife.
All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 00:59, 27 October 2015 (UTC).
So add an RS that corrects any NPOV problems you see. You've been here long enough to know that we're not really allowed to pull source material out of our imaginations. Kevin Gorman (talk) 21:51, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
That's such a small and inadequate article for such a commonly invoked concept in pop-psychiatry and politics. To see this debate about the husband quote... well, it's like you've just opened the lifeboat's ration container and all there is in it is a quarter of a roll of peppermint candy, and you say you wish it were spearmint. If the article were ten times longer it would probably balance out. Wnt (talk) 11:18, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
Possibly I'm misinterpreting User:GoodDay here, but I think that was their exact point. If you look hard enough you can find your pet prejudice in everything. Indeed Sarkeesian (I think it was, in the Sydney House All About Women panel) in comments to the effect that "Everything is sexist, everything is racist and everything is homophobic, and you have to point it all out to everyone, all the time."
And we se this not just with the likes of Lightbreather and her "wall of offence", but in our nationalist disputes, where independent commentators are accused of being Bosnians, Serbs and Croatians, Indians and Pakistanis, Jews and Palestinians - simply because people cannot read anything that is not 100% supportive of them personally anything but "the wicked other" - thus certain women at GGTF were assumed to be (misogynist) men, because they did not fit the narrative that the other person required of women.
All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 22:40, 29 October 2015 (UTC).
Indeed, there's alot of strong feelings among editors on this project, concerning many areas. Believe it, I've experienced quite a bit in my near 10 years on the 'pedia & suffered mightly, when I stepped (too many times) on the wrong toes. We've got to learn to put away (as much as possible) the block buttons & seek out those things we have in common :) GoodDay (talk) 22:46, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

User:Scalhotrod

I'm routinely a fan of this page being a free-for-all, but with due respect to OP there is no prospect of further information being provided to them on this subject. If anyone has a genuine further interest (including the OP via their regular account rather than the one they're using here) they should feel free to email the Committee. Otherwise, we've given a fair go to this Q&A and it's time to move along. -- Euryalus (talk) 18:58, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

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

A user involved in the Lightbreather ArbCom case was blocked today. User:Scalhotrod was blocked by admin User:Worm That Turned. Scalhotrod was later re-blocked by ArbCom member User:Roger Davies with an annotation that they should not be unblocked without consulting ArbCom. It isn't clear if this is related to the Atlantic article or not. Protopone primigena (talk) 23:09, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

The ban has nothing to do with the article in the Atlantic. It's interesting that you found this discussion on your second edit to Wikipedia. Liz Read! Talk! 23:22, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
Can you eloborate, Liz? When you say that it has nothing to do with the article in the Atlantic, do you mean that teh timing is unrelated to the publication of the article or that it has nothing to do with the ArbCom case that prompted that article? Protopone primigena (talk) 02:53, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
The Atlantic article made no difference to the timing or placement of the block on this account. The block relates to private evidence forwarded to the Committee, including in the last few days. In passing I also kind of doubt you are a new editor, and suggest that if you have another account you consider logging in with that one instead. -- Euryalus (talk) 04:45, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
So, if I understand what you are saying, the article in the Atlantic about Lightbreather's ArbCom case from this summer "made no difference", but "in the last few days" (following publication of the article), private evidence was forwarded to ArbCom about Scalhotrod which resulted in a block? Is that a fair assessment? Protopone primigena (talk) 05:16, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for your further message but we are at the point of diminishing returns in this discussion. Question is answered above. -- Euryalus (talk) 05:26, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
@Euryalus: The block on Scalhotrod was placed by Worm That Turned, who is not a member of ArbCom. How did he have had access to "private evidence" sent to ArbCom in the last few days? Protopone primigena (talk) 15:14, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
It's evident now you're just trolling, since Worm's block log entry makes it clear that they transmitted the evidence to ArbComm. If you're not willing to disclose your primary/prior account, I'd suggest this discussion be closed off and this new account blocked. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 17:13, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

@Hullaballoo Wolfowitz: Thank you for your answer. I had not seen Worm That Turned's comment about sending the evidence to ArbCom. Your accusations of "trolling" and sockpuppetry, and your suggestion that my account be blocked, are rather unpleasant. In fact, that and the hatting of an entirely civil discussion seem to prove the truth of what people say about the English Wikipedia community. Protopone primigena (talk) 20:57, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

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

Time to archive

Alright, this has gone on long enough. Jimbo please consider archiving it.♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:25, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jimbo_Wales/Archive_196&oldid=1143087062"