User talk:Jimbo Wales: Difference between revisions

Jimbo welcomes your comments and updates – he has an open door policy. He holds the founder's seat on the Wikimedia Foundation's Board of Trustees. The three trustees elected as community representatives until July 2015 are SJ, Phoebe, and Raystorm. The Wikimedia Foundation Senior Community Advocate is Maggie Dennis.

This is Jimbo Wales's talk page, where you can send them messages and comments.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed

Archives: Index, Index, A, B, C, D, E, F, G, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120, 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130, 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140, 141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149, 150, 151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 159, 160, 161, 162, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167, 168, 169, 170, 171, 172, 173, 174, 175, 176, 177, 178, 179, 180, 181, 182, 183, 184, 185, 186, 187, 188, 189, 190, 191, 192, 193, 194, 195, 196, 197, 198, 199, 200, 201, 202, 203, 204, 205, 206, 207, 208, 209, 210, 211, 212, 213, 214, 215, 216, 217, 218, 219, 220, 221, 222, 223, 224, 225, 226, 227, 228, 229, 230, 231, 232, 233, 234, 235, 236, 237, 238, 239, 240, 241, 242, 243, 244, 245, 246, 247, 248, 249, 250, 251, 252Auto-archiving period: 1 day

This user talk page might be watched by friendly talk page stalkers, which means that someone other than me might reply to your query. Their input is welcome and their help with messages that I cannot reply to quickly is appreciated.

Archives

Index –index– October 28, 2001 – April 12, 2004 April 16, 2004 – August 23, 2004 August 28, 2004 – December 8, 2004 December 9, 2004 – March 23, 2005 March 23, 2005 – July 24, 2005 July 26, 2005 – September 9, 2005 September 9, 2005 – September 24, 2005 September – December 2005 January 2006 January – February 2006 February 2006 February 2006, cont. March 2006 April 2006 – late May 2006 May 24 – July 2006 July 2006 – August 2006 August 2006 Most of September 2006 Late September 2006 – Early November 2006 Most of November 2006 Late November 2006 – December 8, 2006 December 9, 2006 – Mid January 2007 From December 22, 2006 blanking Mid January 2007 – Mid February 2007 Mid February 2007– Feb 25, 2007 From March 2, 2007 blanking March 2–5, 2007 March 5–11, 2007 March 11 – April 3, 2007 April 2 – May 2, 2007 May 3 – June 7, 2007 June 9 – July 4, 2007 July 13 – August 17, 2007 August 17 – September 11, 2007 September 14 – October 7, 2007 October 28 – December 1, 2007 December 2 – December 16, 2007 December 15 – January 4, 2008 January 4 – January 30, 2008 January 30 – February 28, 2008 February 28 – March 11, 2008 March 9 – April 18, 2008 April 18 – May 30, 2008 May 30 – July 27, 2008 July 26 – October 4, 2008 October 4 – November 12, 2008 November 10 – December 10, 2008 December 5 – December 25, 2008 December 25 – January 16, 2009 January 15 – January 27, 2009 January 26 – February 10, 2009 February 8 – March 18, 2009 March 18 – May 6, 2009 May 5 – June 9, 2009 June 10 – July 11, 2009 July 12 – August 25, 2009 August 26 – October 3, 2009 October 4 – November 20, 2009 November 20 – December 21, 2009 December 22, 2009 – January 25, 2010 January 22, 2010 – February 22, 2010 February 22, 2010 – March 17, 2010 March 17, 2010 – April 9, 2010 April 11, 2010 – April 24, 2010 April 23, 2010 – May 12, 2010 May 10, 2010 – June 4, 2010 June 4, 2010 – June 26, 2010 June 26, 2010 – July 22, 2010 July 22, 2010 – August 23, 2010 August 4, 2010 – August 28, 2010 August 28, 2010 – September 14, 2010 September 13, 2010 – October 6, 2010 October 6, 2010 – November 8, 2010 November 8, 2010 – November 21, 2010 November 21, 2010 – December 6, 2010 December 6, 2010 – December 22, 2010 December 21, 2010 – January 17, 2011 January 16, 2011 – February 10, 2011 February 6, 2011 – March 19, 2011 March 16, 2011 – March 26, 2011 March 26, 2011 – April 22, 2011 April 22, 2011 – May 16, 2011 May 17, 2011 – June 9, 2011 June 10, 2011 – July 1, 2011 July 1, 2011 – July 15, 2011 July 16, 2011 – July 26, 2011 July 26, 2011 – August 15, 2011 August 14, 2011 – August 23, 2011 August 21, 2011 – August 31, 2011 August 30, 2011 – September 7, 2011 September 4, 2011 – September 25, 2011 September 26, 2011 – October 19, 2011 October 16, 2011 – November 5, 2011 November 4, 2011 – November 12, 2011 November 11, 2011 – November 24, 2011 November 24, 2011 – December 6, 2011 December 3, 2011 – December 14, 2011 December 10, 2011 – December 16, 2011 (RFC about the Stop Online Piracy Act) December 15, 2011 – December 30, 2011 December 27, 2011 – January 9, 2012 January 9, 2012 – January 18, 2012 January 17, 2012 – January 30, 2012 January 28, 2012 – February 12, 2012 February 7, 2012 – February 25, 2012 February 19, 2012 – March 4, 2012 February 27, 2012 – March 18, 2012 March 17, 2012 – April 2, 2012 March 31, 2012 – April 13, 2012 April 12, 2012 – April 18, 2012 April 18, 2012 – April 26, 2012 April 26, 2012 – May 6, 2012 May 2, 2012 – May 22, 2012 May 19, 2012 – June 9, 2012 June 4, 2012 – June 20, 2012 June 18, 2012 – June 28, 2012 June 26, 2012 – July 12, 2012 July 3, 2012 – July 22, 2012 July 19, 2012 – July 29, 2012 July 25, 2012 – August 9, 2012 August 7, 2012 – August 30, 2012 August 29, 2012 – September 13, 2012 September 13, 2012 – September 27, 2012 September 26, 2012 – October 5, 2012 September 24, 2012 – October 20, 2012 October 9, 2012 – October 31, 2012 October 29, 2012 – November 19, 2012 November 17, 2012 – December 5, 2012 December 2–15, 2012 December 15–28, 2012 December 24, 2012 – January 12, 2013 January 13–31, 2013 February 1–10, 2013 February 11–28, 2013 March 1–16, 2013 March 17–27, 2013 March 28 – April 6, 2013 April 6–19, 2013 April 19 – May 3, 2013 April 25 – May 8, 2013 May 6–19, 2013 May 18–30, 2013 May 27 – June 16, 2013 June 17–30, 2013 June 27 – July 30, 2013 July 31 – August 4, 2013 August 4–12, 2013 August 13–27, 2013 August 28 – September 4, 2013 September 5–10, 2013 September 11–22, 2013 September 24 – October 6, 2013 October 7–16, 2013 October 17–27, 2103 October 28 – November 6, 2013 November 7–19, 2013 November 20–27, 2013 November 28 – December 5, 2013 December 6–24, 2013 December 25–30, 2013 December 31, 2013 – January 14, 2014 January 15–24, 2014 January 25–29, 2014 January 30 – February 10, 2014 Archives not yet dated: 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 This manual archive index may be out of date. Future archives: 184 185 186

This page has archives. Sections older than 24 hours may be automatically archived by ClueBot III when more than 2 sections are present.

"Imagine a world in which every single person on the planet is given free access to the sum of all human knowledge. That's what we're doing." -Jimmy Wales

We had that, have it and will always have: It is called THE INTERNET.

So why is there any need to have one central site trying to sum it up (and thereby severely distort it, going through ONE GIANT FILTER) , rather than have the respective citizens BUILD THEIR OWN OPINION???--37.230.25.112 (talk) 07:27, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Because "knowledge" is not a video of a talking dog saying "I love you"...and opinion is not the sum of human knowledge but the digested bits that one understands and comments on, none of which is knowledge...just....fluff and text. Any other questions?--Mark Miller (talk) 08:19, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And also because far from ALL human knowledge is currently on the internet. DES ^(talk) 22:49, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That was my point with the talking dog, but you put it much clearer.--Mark Miller (talk) 09:33, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Because you can have both? Diego (talk) 10:23, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I think I saw a thesis once that compared the effect of freely-available health information on the internet to the effect of a written English Bible on Christianity; yes, it made for more educated people, but it also opened up worse dangers of tremendously improbable or impossible interpretations being held up as fact, and then acted upon by others. Wikipedia is at least a lightly-filtered, slightly peer-reviewed compendium ES&L 09:54, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"'tremendously improbable or impossible interpretations' - exactly - that's what Wikipedia has been producing in a lot of instances, and it is quite frankly you use that as an argument FOR it...--37.230.16.36 (talk) 00:38, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• And you can start new wikipedias, each with a different filter. Or mini-wikipedias, to cover specialized areas of knowledge. Nobody is forced to use only wikipedia! --Enric Naval (talk) 12:37, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Nobody is forced to use only Wikipedia"? Being listed no.1 search result for ANY topic at ALL search engines on the whole internet is actually darn close to being forced to use Wikipedia... Not speaking of the fact that those search results aren't the product of the quality of the Wikipedia articles, but a product of an "agreement" between Google&Co and Wikipedia...--37.230.16.36 (talk) 00:35, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think www.ippedia.org (the 'pedia only editable anonymously) is available  :-) ES&L 13:01, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jimbo, earlier I found this site which logs Wikimedia IRC channels, an act against rules, which they acknowledge. My question is: can we do anything about this? Thanks, Matty.007 18:36, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There should be no protection from IRC logging. If you abuse IRC, assume and expect to be called on it. If you want privacy, use email. Carrite (talk) 19:39, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Pretty much. I'm not sure if WMF could assert copyright, but other than that, there is no real recourse except to block access to those found to be violating the TOS for those IRC channels. But as Tarc notes below: IRC (the entire internet, really) is not a private medium. Resolute 21:32, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ding ding ding, give that man a cigar. Wikipedia's "unofficial" channels are a slimy hive of unprincipled abuse that should have had the unflinching light of scrutiny and accountability - in the form of full and public logging, such as happens in many other free culture projects - shone upon them long ago. — Scott • talk 22:38, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take an Oliva V salomon or a My Father Le Bijou 1922 torpedo. Thanks. Carrite (talk) 03:44, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've posted logs off-wiki when something particularly interesting/juicy has taken place there, and have no qualms about doing so again if the situation warrants it. You do not have an expectation of privacy in IRC; the "rule" you cite is unenforceable. Tarc (talk) 21:28, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have long made it a personal policy that I will not discuss Wikipedia business over IRC. But given that the "no-log" rule is not enforceable, and that it is counter to the normal expectations for IRC channels, and the general practice of transparency on Wikipedia, why is this rule promulgated at all? DES ^(talk) 22:26, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've heard it implied that one purpose of the rule is to provide something to do for people who feel an impulse to break rules. Keeps 'em busy. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 06:07, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My general feeling has been that the "no logging" rule is simply to prevent people from using, on-wiki, what someone says on IRC against them wantonly or as justification for performing on-wiki actions. They're simply separate mediums. There might be copyright issues on the nit-grit somewhere—I'm not a lawyer—but I think it's more "let's draw the line here: we won't record the gossip people talk about while they're powdering their nose in the bathroom." One example is people asking for advice on how to proceed so that they Do The Right Thing™ without their first-draft response being indelibly on-record. Another's if an editor was chilling in one of those channels and makes some unpopular-but-honest remark; the expectation's that they shouldn't be held to it as being an on-wiki action (e.g., it's not going to be the subject of a diff opposing someone for wanting to be on the Mediation Committee or something). On a related note, this also prevents admins from taking on-wiki actions "per IRC" and helps ensure official discussions stay on-wiki. Anyway, long story short, this allows IRC to be a place where people can practice, vent frustrations, bitch, take a break, or even fight in hopes that they're less prone to doing those same things on-wiki to more disastrous effect. Obviously there's no way to fool-proof-edly prevent some random dude logging or reposting of logs to 3rd party sites, but that's neither the primary intent nor predominant application of the rule anyway. :P --slakr^\ talk / 01:10, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This category is needed to provide a single page view of various historical slave owners. My edits to U.S. presidents having been slave owners are being reverted; in Germany denying certain parts of history is a crime, in other countries it's just inaccurate and offensive. That murderers is a category but not slave owners is not seems a like a very bad sign to me. I'm probably going to be blocked again, I would very deeply appreciate your assistance and that of anyone else. Thank you either way; I thought I could help wikipedia the way wikipedia helped me. CensoredScribe (talk) 05:17, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

CensoredScribe, first, don't start crying "Jimbo help me" when you get reverted. Second, CensoredScribe arbitrarily created the category Category:Slave owner within the past few hours and added it to George Washington, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, and James Monroe. He has a history of creating poorly thought out categories that he and only he populates based on his personal concept of what fulfills the category. In addition, he had begun to revive categories that have long been deleted due to the community's decision that it serves no purpose.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 05:28, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) Um, have you tried actually engaging in a discussion with anyone over this? As far as I can see, all you've done so far is create the category, and then add it to four articles on U.S. presidents - nothing on any talk page. Nothing. [1] Your first action after being reverted is to come crying to Jimbo that you are 'probably going to be blocked again'. Frankly, I think that is pathetic. If you think the category is justified, argue for it properly, rather than playing the 'censorship' card. Bogus martyrdom rarely fools anyone. AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:34, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And one other thing - you write "I'm probably going to be blocked again". Your account has never been blocked. Have you previously edited under another name? AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:45, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I estimate that the odds that an account including the word "censored" will prove to be unproductive exceed 99%. All serious students of U.S. history know that several early presidents owned slaves. No one is censoring that, but pointy editing regarding that fact is unacceptable. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:27, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Most slave owners were not presidents. I assume correctly most wouldn't even be Americans yet for some reason that bias wasn't as important; I am naturally less familiar with less famous figures. CensoredScribe (talk) 07:22, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you wanted to make a serious case for the 'slave owner' category, you would probably have done better not to have created such arbitrary and time-wasting categories as 'Category:Fictional headless' and 'Category:Fictional characters who absorb souls' at the same time. Wikipedia isn't a dumping ground for things you thought up while you were emptying the cat litter. This is an encyclopaedia, not your personal blog, and nobody but you is interested in such drivel. AndyTheGrump (talk) 07:53, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note there is now a thread at WP:ANI (started by CensoredScribe) concerning this issue. AndyTheGrump (talk) 08:09, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It is unfortunate, though, if a perfect good category ends up not being created due to cluelessness on the part of the creator. "I estimate that the odds that an account including the word 'censored' will prove to be unproductive exceed 99%." is correct. I think a valid discussion could be had as to whether a category like this could be helpful.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 15:55, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Both Category:Slave owners and Category:Slaveholders have existed before, with the latter being deleted via CFD. —Xezbeth (talk) 17:13, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is a misleading statement, BOTH categories were deleted, while only the latter one was "discussed". This "discussion" included statements like this: "....I believe these categories should be deleted. While slavery is unacceptable by todays standards, in the past it was as common, natural, and trivial as owning a TV set today. Cat chi? 09:14, 28 April 2007 (UTC)". --37.230.31.100 (talk) 02:40, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's also interesting the deletion via CFD is completely ignoring this fact "The American Civil War (1861–1865) started as a war to prevent the literal segregation of the North and South, but it soon became a fight of the eradication of the institution of slavery." (from Slaves_and_the_American_Civil_War) and is actually trying to trivialize the issue of slavery, stating further comments like "This is basically an anachronistic slur. Owning slaves was unremarkable in many (perhaps most) times and places"--37.230.31.100 (talk) 02:53, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect less than one percent of the population are economically, romantically; or socio-politically able to become CENSORED (8 letter hate word) like Jack Parsons, Osiris, Gene Wilder, Legion and Lazarus. Though I also know what I just said in that last sentence would never fly in an article; you should add Wikipedia not a utopia as a page. It will never be added to an article because that original research is less credible a theory than ancient aliens; which at least has a television show to reference. CensoredScribe (talk) 04:47, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Category:Car_owner or Category:Horse_owner: Hey, Did you know that President George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, and Abraham Lincoln did not own an automobile!! And was that racially motivated against French-named cities like Detroit? Also, BTW John Wayne (actor) did not like horses, but did he own one?!?!? OMG imagine the possible revelations. -Wikid77 15:09, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• This category is definitely 100% encyclopedic, for what it's worth. I have a hard time getting worked up over somebody starting a good category and then starting it up with a few US Presidents. That's how WP works — think of it as a category stub. Carrite (talk) 03:51, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jimbo, Bethel Township wants to know... what percentage of your Talk page visitors do you love? What percent do you like? What percent are you indifferent? What percent dislike? And what percent do you loathe? - 108.16.215.80 (talk) 19:29, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This way of thinking is very alien to me.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 19:31, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Are you saying you like or love every human being equally? (It's difficult to imagine that you love your wife or your kids the same amount as you love, say, Larry Sanger or Amy Chozick, for example.) Or are you saying that the act of assigning percentages to such categories of people is alien to you? - Checking the checkers (talk) 15:44, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't he doomed no matter what his says? Irrespective of the answer, some tard will come by and tell him his worldview is hypocritical based on some obscure reference he made in pre-school. Saffron Blaze (talk) 16:24, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jimbo - Fuck (film) has been nominated for "Today's featured article" at the TFA requests page. One of the comments says that this should not run without WMF approval, since using "fuck" on the main page "will trigger automated filters and get Wikipedia blacklisted on a lot of corporate networks, get Wikipedia blocked from schools worldwide, and get the site banned as a whole in large swathes of Africa and Asia. ... and Jimmy Wales is going to have to spend the next few months trying to persuade assorted sceptical governments that Wikipedia doesn't represent a threat to public decency..." Do you have any thoughts on this comment, or indeed the request? Thanks, Bencherlite (TFA co-ordinator) 19:41, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There are a zillion things that can trigger filtering software, see Scunthorpe problem. Fuck (film) could do this, but if it is a Featured Article it should be treated on its own merits as WP:NOTCENSORED applies here.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 20:04, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As usual, I think that WP:NOTCENSORED is almost never a useful consideration for just about anything. No one is contemplating censoring Wikipedia, so that's irrelevant.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 20:16, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. Hankey, the Christmas Poo was Today's Featured Article on December 17, 2012. Some Featured Articles have controversial content, but they should all have equal status. Although the main page is more visible, there are plenty of things that can set off filtering software when browsing on the web.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 20:42, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This doesn't entail the removal of content, but barring material from appearing on the main page (because it contains a word deemed offensive) raises some of the same issues.

I think that the concerns regarding collateral damage are valid, but I question the likelihood of such a fallout. The word "fuck" has appeared on the main page before (not without controversy, but with nothing approaching the doomsday scenario that some envision). And as noted in the TFA request discussion, Gropecunt Lane appeared as TFA without major incident. —David Levy 20:46, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It depends. I do consider changing the rules on something like TFA because one does not like the subject matter to be censorship. While the aim of such an action would not be to remove the content, it would be designed to mask and hide the content. In this specific case, it would be a most ironic act of censorship. IMO, the only potentially credible objection to running this article would be risk of triggering profanity filters and causing a widespread block of Wikipedia. I'm not sure that is actually a significant concern, however, as we have numerous articles and far more talk pages that invoke George Carlin's seven dirty words and I am not aware of any complaints about Wikipedia - in whole or in part - being blocked as a result. Resolute 22:40, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I oppose censorship, and it looks like a reasonably interesting article. Nonetheless, the two posters for the film in the article both use "F★ck" as the title, as did many reliable sources covering it. Therefore, it seems to me to be at the discretion of TFA posters to decide to use the star in the Main Page blurb if they wish. (It may take some tweaking to get the best display for this) What difference the display of a character makes in a moral sense, of course, is a matter for consideration. Wnt (talk) 22:10, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's explained in the article that an asterisk was substituted for the "u" in some marketing materials because of restrictions that prevented the film's actual title from appearing.

In an interview about the film on his website, Anderson discussed his problems when he decided to name his film Fuck instead of a censored version of the word. He said he always wanted to call the documentary Fuck, because it succinctly described the film's contents. There were inherent problems with this approach, including an inability to advertise the film with its true title in mainstream media such as The New York Times and the Los Angeles Times (they used four asterisks instead), although the real title might be permitted in alternative newspapers like LA Weekly. Anderson also anticipated problems displaying the film's title during film festivals on theatre marquees.

Anderson explained that although the title of his documentary was Fuck, he allowed alternate designations using an asterisk. The film and content he controlled would refer to the title as Fuck, including theatrical and DVD editions. He concluded that his struggle reflected the debate alluded to by the documentary, and this realization motivated him to stand firm on the film's title. Because the film is about how a taboo word can impact culture, it was important to keep Fuck as its title.

If F★ck were the film's actual title, this would be reflected in our article, including its title. (MediaWiki supports the "★" character, so F★ck is a functional redirect.) —David Levy 22:31, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I saw that - my feeling is that Wikipedia is no better than its sources, and so if its sources split the difference we could also. I'm not saying you can't use the film's intended title, only that we are not unjustified to use a title that the New York Times used for it if we find that convenient. My main concern is that it be featured, not which sourced version of the title we use in doing so. (I was only suggesting you could use stars in the movie title, not whenever the word appears) Wnt (talk) 02:34, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I saw that - my feeling is that Wikipedia is no better than its sources, and so if its sources split the difference we could also. I'm not saying you can't use the film's intended title, only that we are not unjustified to use a title that the New York Times used for it if we find that convenient.

You're suggesting that we refer to the film as "****"?

The New York Times has an editorial policy of censoring certain words. Wikipedia has a policy against it. This doesn't mean that one is "better" than the other, but it's a material difference.

If the film had an actual alternative title, that would be one thing. The producer/director has stated that it doesn't (and that such renderings constitute the very type of censorship that he opposes and seeks to criticise via the film).

My main concern is that it be featured, not which sourced version of the title we use in doing so.

In my opinion, excluding the article from TFA would be preferable to including it with a censored title. Not every featured article makes it onto the main page, so outright omission doesn't inherently violate Wikipedia's principles. Replacing words with censored versions does. —David Levy 03:48, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It is very peculiar for me to argue this side of a censorship-related issue, but look at the images in the article. There are not one but two posters, presumably made by or with direct approval of the filmmakers, showing a star in place of the "u". In any case the article should run, star or not, and as I said the lead should contain the direct reference to Fuck: Word Taboo and Protecting Our First Amendment Liberties. So this wouldn't be a complete suppression, just a choice to use a widely publicized if unofficial alternate title for the film as a matter of style. Wnt (talk) 05:03, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The opening sentence of the article is "Fuck is a 2005 American documentary film by director Steve Anderson about the word "fuck"." This means that the word "fuck" would appear on the main page regardless of the article title, as "From today's featured article" always has the opening paragraph to give a taster of the text. The claim that the sky would fall down with obscenity filters seems undue. This is not strictly a WP:NOTCENSORED issue, as Jimbo and others have pointed out. The real issue is whether the article is worth having on the main page. It has a properly cited encyclopedic context, and is not a "shock for shock's sake" scenario which would rightly set off criticism.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 05:22, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There are not one but two posters, presumably made by or with direct approval of the filmmakers, showing a star in place of the "u".

And as discussed above, this was censorship necessitated by the rules of the media in which the advertising appeared. Wikipedia, conversely, has a policy against censorship. We mention the F★ck variant and display the posters to document the aforementioned advertising (and the censorship that occurred therein), but we don't censor the film's title ourselves.

Your citation of the posters is confusing, as you just opined that "we are not unjustified to use a title that the New York Times used for it if we find that convenient". In its review, The New York Times referred to the film as "****" (but explained that this is not its title).

So this wouldn't be a complete suppression, just a choice to use a widely publicized if unofficial alternate title for the film as a matter of style.

A choice based solely on a desire to censor a word deemed objectionable. That isn't our "style". —David Levy 06:10, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you have a point about that ref, and in any case, I've been sitting uncomfortably on this nuanced position. Perhaps I should simply stick with a more familiar anti-censorship position. The bottom line in all this is that if the article runs and trips some censorware, that's a) not our problem and b) not the wrong thing for us to do. Wikipedia really isn't child safe, can't be, because anyone can edit here, and a kid could go on any talk page or an email or IRC chat and end up being persuaded, if sufficiently naive, to meet someone at a public place for some particularly unfortunate kind of education. That's not to say we're exceptionally dangerous, but we should think of this place like a massive city library with three or four floors where all sorts of things could happen to an unwary and unescorted child. An occasional shot across the bow that reminds parents and school administrators that Wikipedia does contain a wide range of content and opportunities is just being honest. I reconcile this position with my general disdain for censorware by saying that it is a parent's or teacher's job to raise a child, not a machine's, and one purpose of that education is to ensure that the child is able to look at content like this without disruptive consequences long before he reaches adulthood. Hopefully the attempt by those in charge to reconcile that a) Wikipedia is a good thing and b) Wikipedia contains "objectionable" content will lead to a different way of thinking about such matters. Wnt (talk) 06:43, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Has anyone bothered to ask whether the nomination is sincere? EllenCT (talk) 07:01, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As I am British, R v Penguin Books Ltd. immediately sprung to mind when this issue was raised. This is better known as the Lady Chatterley trial of 1960. Back then, some people needed smelling salts when they saw the word "fuck" in print, probably for the first time. Since then, the word has lost a lot of its power to shock. If Fuck (film) does make it to TFA, it is possible that the Daily Mail and Fox News will have their controversy du jour, as it would be hard for them to pass up such a heaven-sent opportunity to bash Wikipedia again. This should not influence the TFA discussion one way or the other, it is a Featured Article, that is what matters here.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 07:05, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the question of sincerity the fact that it has received support from established exitors means that there is a sincere view that it should be a TFA even if the nominator was not serious. Based on that I don't see potential insincerity by the nonimator as relevant at this point since the ship has sailed.--174.93.163.194 (talk) 07:30, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: Yes, EllenCT, the nomination is sincere. I have brought the article Fuck (film) successfully through several stages of review, including: Good article, Peer review, Guild of Copy Editors, and Featured Article. I also created the wiki article Fuck: Word Taboo and Protecting Our First Amendment Liberties and brought that one to WP:GA quality. Thank you for your interest in the subject matter of freedom of speech and censorship, — Cirt (talk) 10:16, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fantastic. Where is the appropriate place to dissent? EllenCT (talk) 10:28, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Did you not make it more than eleven words into Bencherlite's message (and by extension, the discussion) before your sheer astonishment led you to question the nomination's sincerity? —David Levy 14:38, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Here's a concept: terrible idea for the mainpage. See: WP:BLATANTLYOBVIOUSTROLL. Carrite (talk) 03:59, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Are you refering to Cirt? I have no doubt that he's honest, and has put the work in. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:07, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thank you, Crisco 1492, for your kind words. I strongly dispute this WP:NPA comment by Carrite. My quality contributions on the subject matter of freedom of speech include the WP:FA quality article Freedom for the Thought That We Hate and the WP:GA quality article Fuck: Word Taboo and Protecting Our First Amendment Liberties. — Cirt (talk) 08:27, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well, it hardly is necessary to read that as a personal attack (as an aside, is NPA anti-free speech), since 'a troll' is also the description of a needlessly provocative posting (although, you were perhaps trolled by its use, above) but we are, after all, discussing a provocative posting, on the main page. Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:37, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • I'd consider troll a low-level PA, as trolls are considered 1) not worth listening to, 2) not having anything to say that is significant, 3) not constructive or intent on promoting a group effort, and 4) into getting reactions rather than results. In other words, saying Cirt is a "blatantly obvious troll" is tantamount to saying Cirt, his opinions, and the article are garbage which should be ignored or discarded. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:32, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
          • • You have missed the point, 'troll' may refer to a written posting and not a person, and here what was explicitly referred to was not a person but an "idea for the main page." Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:27, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
              • Why does ASW's attitude make me think of giving out the "pot-calling-the-kettle-black-award" for the incongruity of a troll having the gall to call another user a troll?--ColonelHenry (talk) 19:12, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jimbo, in 2007 on his RFA user:Jehochman was asked a question. Below is the question and the response:

Question from WjBscribe

4: Following a link from your userpage I see that your company [2] is involved in SEO and internet marketing. Commentators have increasingly been discussing the use such firms have put Wikipedia to in terms of enhancing their client's profiles on the web. How do you combine your role in that industry with your editing here while avoiding any conflicts of interest?

A:I've been an outspoken critic of link spammers and those who would abuse Wikipedia. There's a big misconception that all SEOs are spammers and jerks. Some of us aren't. Here's a summary of my Wikipedia and SEO presentation given to 500 SEOs in New York this year. Here's a review of my SEO Reputation Problem talk in San Jose this August. My business involves helping people build better websites and promote them through legitimate means. I strongly discourage all forms of astroturfing (phony, COI contributions) because I've come to realize that this sort of marketing can trigger very negative publicity when discovered. Professional marketers can't afford to take those risks.

Jimbo, I have evidence to demonstrate that the articles listed below were written by Jehochman on behalf of his clients and/or his friends.

• Intermec
• Virtutech
• Lyrtech
• Clay Johnson (technologist)
• Vanessa Fox
• Bob's Discount Furniture

There are more, some of which were deleted. Jehochman was not happy about that, and even accused the initiator of a few AFDs of "wikistalking" and vandalism. Jehochman also spams articles with the link to his clients websites.

Jimbo, even more concerning is this BLP. The subject of the BLP is not Jehochman's friend and not Jehochman's client. He was the Chairman of Vonage, the company that was a competitor to the company Jehochman worked for or was associated with BroadVoice. The BLP I linked to above is an attack page written to discredit business competitor.

PSC Inc. This article was written as an advertisement to begin with. It is still an advertisement. I don't think the company even exist anymore, but its Wikipedia's entry does. Is this a free knowledge or a paid advertisement? As I said above I do have all the evidences to confirm my words, but I am sure Jehochman is not going to deny them. The question is if Jehochman should be allowed to keep his tools. 50.174.100.208 (talk) 19:37, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure he'll respond here. This, by the way, is not the right venue to actually do anything, and I encourage you to take this to an appropriate venue as well. This is a good place for the philosophical conversation.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 20:45, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

On the philosophical point, I personally think that admins should not engage in paid advocacy editing, nor in undisclosed COI editing as some admins (and crats) have done in the past. On this particular case, I think someone should bring it to arbcom, which is, I guess, the appropriate venue. It shouldn't be the unregistered editor posting above that does so however, as they've been banned by the community and thus should not be editing at all. Someone else can do it. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 22:57, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

On the philosophical point the thing is that I am banned by the community of russavias, jehochmans and demiurge1000s. I am banned, alright. The question is who Wikipedia is left with. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.174.100.208 (talk) 01:14, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Slightly over the top ego if you feel no one is left after you are gone.--Mark Miller (talk) 02:04, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Agree, it was slightly over the top, just my English, you know :-)50.174.100.208 (talk) 02:18, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Like--Mark Miller (talk) 02:44, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I think this is a great place to have a conversation about an administrator who shrieked and shrieked and shrieked and shrieked about Arbitrator-elect 28bytes "lying by omission" and then, uh, oh, you get the point. Time to resign your tools on general principles, Mr. Hochman. What's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. Carrite (talk) 03:07, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• 28bytes was an insider at paid editing advocacy forum Wikipediocracy, though (where the originator of this section is also a regular, surprise surprise), and thus 28bytes can have his admin (and crat) bits back anytime he likes. Just by asking. There's the difference. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 03:28, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Wikipediocracy is not a "paid editing advocacy forum", given that it's populated with people of diverse opinions and there is no formal site position on same. But you already know that - Alison ^❤ 06:54, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Diverse opinions? On that particular topic? Hardly. Besides which, it's no secret who owns the domain, and the agenda they come here to push. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 07:55, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I took care of it. Cla68 (talk) 11:03, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• There does not seem to be any recent COI editing concerns. However, it does appear that Jehochman was less-than-forthright during his RfA about COI issues. It is quite likely that had the above editing been disclosed at that time, when it would have been much more recent, that he would have had far less chance of passing an RfA.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 17:04, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• DA, have you read the beginning of the thread? There's a quote from Jehochman's RFA from 2007. He was specifically asked about editing on behalf of his clients and he has never disclosed his spamming. Also in 2006 Jehochman was asked a direct question: May I ask, are you being paid to edit wikipedia? See his answer? It's good policy never to answer pointless questions. I don't understand the point of your question. How would you verify my answer, and what difference would it make? Edits are evaluated on their merits, not their motivations. Jehochman 21:22, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
• Also you don't know if there is or there is not recent COI edits. For example see this AFD. I assume the BLP was written by Jehochman because he got a notice of of its nominating on deletion He took an active part in AFD, and he is associated with the subject of that BLP.50.174.100.208 (talk) 17:40, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

**"Freedom of speech" is irrelevant and does not apply on Wikipedia. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:01, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Wrong, in so many ways. 88.104.24.150 (talk) 00:27, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

--Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Block_proposal

88.104.24.150 (talk) 00:39, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, "Freedom of Speech" is hardly ever relevant to disputes at Wikipedia. (There are edge cases, I suppose.)--Jimbo Wales (talk) 00:44, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hm, users need to be able to criticise the way the wiki works though, and their being blocked for merely contradicting the status-quo seems wrong.

That was my point.

People need to be able to challenge the status-quo, without worrying that they'll be blocked for doing so. Gosh, I'm a poet. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.104.24.150 (talk) 01:37, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That quote by Bushranger actually reminded to me one of the so called telemosty between Soviet Union and USA that were popular in the Soviet Union in 1980s. In one of the shows, a woman from Boston inquired about Soviet contraception. A Russian woman responded: "Here in Russia we don't have sex." Well, we had no freedom of speech in Soviet Union either... but I would have never believed that in the 22nd century, in the free world, here on Wikipedia a person could get community banned with absolutely no means to say a single word in his/her defense and with no evidences of an alleged behavior whatsoever.

Jimbo, Wikipedia would have been much better off, if it treated people with dignity and with the respect. 50.174.100.208 (talk) 02:00, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

OK, 50.174.100.208, let me ask you this: Do you have any "rights" on Wikipedia?--Mark Miller (talk) 02:03, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have my constitutional rights that do apply to even private websites. 50.174.100.208 (talk) 02:14, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Which country's constitution do you have in mind? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 02:26, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This has been well discussed. The US constitution has no control over a private organization's decisions on content. Odd that anyone would be so upset by a democratic !vote for their ban. In almost very case, the editor being proposed to be banned is allowed to defend themselves at AN or AN/I. But, as for rights...as I understand it, our only right is to leave and stop editing. Beyond that it is a privilege to donate here.--Mark Miller (talk) 02:43, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So, this place holds itself up as an open and public space that anyone can edit, yet is not subject to the US constitution because it is a private entity despite the fact it is also a public charity that relies on the state for its charitable status to entice that same public to donate to it? Saffron Blaze (talk) 04:46, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Where did WMF or the WP community mention "an open and public space"?

What evidence do you have for the assertion that no-one would donate to the WMF if it were not registered as a non-profit in that one particular nation? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 05:00, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Welcome to Wikipedia,

the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit.

4,439,567 articles in English" ...as clear as it can get, even more ridiculous you are questioning this, at all...But not only ridiculous, actually claiming such stuff is very impertinent.--37.230.23.56 (talk) 02:42, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mark,there were precedents when freedom of speech was allowed on private sites, and if it was allowed on shopping malls, surely it should be allowed on a site that belongs to a charitable tax-exempt organization.

I had no democratic vote for my ban. I was not allowed to say a single word in my defense, not even at my own talk page.

I am not editing here. I am trying to make Wikipedia more humane, safer place. Why? Maybe because I am different. I came from a different culture. You've never lived behind the iron curtain, you will not understand. When a friend of mine went to live to USA he wrote a letter to me. He wrote that he felt as kissing every star and every strip on the American Flag... When I lived in the Soviet Union I was not allowed to travel, where I wanted to, I was no allowed to read what I wanted to. I tried to change the regime there, and now I'm trying to change the regime here on Wikipedia because no human being should be treated as I was, and I know a few persons who are: the former editors and the subjects of BLPs alike. I was even able to help two of them. What I am doing I am doing not only for myself,not even for others like me, but for Wikipedia too. 50.174.100.208 (talk) 05:23, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"I am not editing here. I am trying to make Wikipedia more humane, safer place." Admission that the IP editor is not here to build an encyclopedia? Do you understand how you make it difficult for others to see anything but point making.

Yes, there are times when an editor has lost their talk page privilege and when blocked one cannot edit at An or AN/I but it is your responsibility to know our policies and procedures and if you disrupt to a point that others don't want to touch you...you're on your own and few will assist in guiding you.

Your link is not a precedence to private, non government websites. Websites are not "Private property" in the sense that case law discusses and attempting to stretch it here and now is not the best thing to attempt.

I have great sympathy for having lived behind the iron curtain. I do...and if you took a bit of time you would see that Wikipedia currently has editors who cannot edit freely because they are STILL behind such an iron curtain. But they manage to show their good faith intentions and learn the ropes while respecting the reality that, this is not a public space. This is a privately owned and operated website. it is not the same as if you wanted to carry a banner into a grocery store.

Here we work with the consensus of others. You seem to miss that part and it may have led to your downfall.

If Jimbo sees this, perhaps he will take a moment just to be sure you were blocked properly. However...if everything was done to correctly, your best bet is what we call the "Standard offer". Please take a moment to read through the link. I hope you understand that, as editors, we are here for one purpose, the free flow of information. In order to accomplish the free flow...we must at times block editors that clog up that flow. It may not be forever and if you can demonstrate that you understand what is expected from us here, it is likely you will be allowed back eventually.--Mark Miller (talk) 06:48, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• 1. Mark, Admission that the IP editor is not here to build an encyclopedia? Do you understand how you make it difficult for others to see anything but point making. No I don't and you're wrong because the Wikipedia is not getting built in a vacuum , and making the environment, in which the encyclopedia is getting built, more humane helps to retain the editors, the very editors that Wikipedia is loosing. When I edited Wikipedia I wrote around 100 popular DYKs, I uploaded thousands of high resolution images, many of which are unique, but what I am doing now is the best contribution to your site.
  2. Yes, there are times when an editor has lost their talk page privilege and when blocked one cannot edit at An or AN/I but it is your responsibility to know our policies and procedures and if you disrupt to a point that others don't want to touch you...you're on your own and few will assist in guiding you. I have not disrupted any policy and although I was blocked for an alleged harassment no single diff was provided to confirm the accusations. Half of the users who supported my ban were heavily involved with me. What consensus are you talking about? Besides consensus should be based not only on the number of votes, but on some evidence, some diffs. There was none in my situation.
  3. the "Standard offer" does not work as you think it does. I know many editors who were refused to be unblock until they apologize, and even after they apologize, please see this talk page as an example. This editor is lucky. He is able to edit his talk. The ones who do not mostly got ignored when they email to the arbcom or getting responses such as that: "The Arbitration Committee believes that the action taking regarding you on English Wikipedia was correct, and will not discuss the matter at all with you. Any further e-mails relating to this subject will be ignored." with no any bloody evidence to support their "belief". Also please read this to see another example of the "Standard offer" that did not work.50.174.100.208 (talk) 16:28, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is your example? --Guy Macon (talk) 17:04, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Re: "users need to be able to criticise the way the wiki works though, and their being blocked for merely contradicting the status quo seems wrong", I have recently disagreed with the WMF regarding WP:FLOW, Arbcom regarding a decision they made, and with Jimbo regarding setting up a Tor exit node. In all three cases nobody even hinted that I might be blocked, and my disagreement with the status quo was treated with respect and reason.

I have never been blocked in my 8 years of editing Wikipedia. The way to avoid blocks is rather simple:

1. Do you best to follow the letter and the spirit of all Wikipedia policies and guidelines, even if you disagree with them.
2. If you are warned about doing something and the warning was legitimate, stop doing it, apologize, and don't do it again.
3. If you are warned about doing something and the warning was bogus, stop doing it, open up a discussion about why you think it was bogus, and don't do it again until that disagreement is resolved in your favor.

It really is that simple. --Guy Macon (talk) 12:14, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• You have only 18.08% in editing articles. If one edits articles, writes new ones especially in the area which is under arbitration, it is all but impossible never get blocked even if one edits within policies.50.174.100.208 (talk) 16:33, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• At least I am above the 15.10% of that noted slacker, Jimbo Wales. :) Seriously though, while article creation is important, so are things like volunteering at WP:DRN or participating in policy discussions. As for it being all but impossible never get blocked while editing articles, I have made 2900 article edits without being blocked and some users are in above 100,000 article edits without being blocked. Again, the key is to take warnings seriously and to immediately stop doing whatever it is that got you warned until you have discussed the issue and the warning admin gives you the go-ahead. You really have to work hard at it to get blocked without being warned first. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:30, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• You're right. I did work hard to get blocked without being warned first. I collected lots of evidences about a bully-admin. I submitted RFC concerning that admin, I supported every statement I made with at least one on-wiki diff, I predicted that the 16-years old boy that admin was bullying at the time is about to explode, and he did (the boy said he felt as killing himself tonight") , and guess what I was able to stop that admin. For two years that admin has not bulled anybody and even admitted she's no longer comfortable to misuse her tools when involved. I am proud of what I did! I wish I were able to stop her before that 16 years old boy sustained irreversible emotional damage. 50.174.100.208 (talk) 21:41, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Guy Macon, you have now been blocked for coaching people in how to avoid blocks, as a violation of wp:TAGTEAM, wp:CANVAS, wp:DE and wp:TE. Just kidding ;-), but I wanted to add a small dose of reality into the discussion at this point. It is amazing, after 8 years how you do not understand the way blocks have been made on Wikipedia. Did you really think blocks are made only after allowing a person to make one reply, or perhaps 3 replies, without the block being issued before even one word is said in defense of actions? Blocks are made with no chance (zero opportunity) to discuss the events in question. Numerous people who have described their blocks as "unfair" have been warned they would even lose talk-page access if such comments continued. You are lucky to be living in bliss, but please beware the suffering of others is real. -Wikid77 (talk) 13:43, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Its a block on an online encyclopedia...not a Crucifixion. I have been blocked for stupid things I did do and for things I never did. Both warned and not warned, but dwelling on all that....doesn't move anything forward. It just keeps me in one place. I move on and work on content and then some project work and then a little discussion of policy etc.. I don't worry about my past blocks, I just do what I know we do, in a civil atmosphere, to foster a free flow of information and try not be an ass as much as possible. OK...so I don't always succeed at that last part but I do try.--Mark Miller (talk) 01:56, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you can be instantly blocked for certain egregious actions, but that won't happen if you follow #1 above. And yes, Wikipedia administrators are human and at times block improperly, so there is a chance that even if you do everything right you may end up blocked and then quickly unblocked by another admin. This is rare, because an admin who repeatedly makes bad blocks will end up desysoped. In general, whenever I hear about "administrator abuse", it turns out that it is the administrator who is being abused.

When you are blocked you get a chance to appeal, with a link to a nice tutorial on how to appeal. Your appeal will be reviewed by another, uninvolved administrator. If you end up concluding that both admins are "unfair", perhaps you should listen to Taylor Swift's upcoming song "Maybe I'm the problem". As for your claim of numerous people who have described their blocks as "unfair" and have been warned they would even lose talk-page access if such comments continued, evidence, please. Give me diffs to example that are not violations of Wikipedia:Appealing a block#Abuse of the unblocking process. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:44, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Guy, I am feeling it is useless to continue our conversation. I only would like to make two points please. When I provided Willbeback example I meant this one. The user made apologies, the user has not socked, and the user is refused not only in the unblock but even in the public hearing of his case. The arbcom should work on the positions of transparency not on the positions of closed tribunals. Also please see this. The members of the arbcom confirm " that community ban appeals are usually dismissed and referred to the community". Interesting how one could appeal to the community, if one talk's page access is removed. 50.174.100.208 (talk) 17:23, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I, too, am impressed by Guy Macon's skill in avoiding blocks for so many years. However, it needs to be stressed that his good fortune is exceptional. Editing uncontroversially can be a very tricky thing, and most people either run into serious problems sooner or later, or they just quit in despair. Often times, perhaps most of the time, our wiki-processes work very well in resolving problems, but it is not at all uncommon for people to be treated unfairly, even terribly, by administrators, and we should not pretend that this system we've created is anywhere near perfect. Everyking (talk) 23:11, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The system is not perfect. Do some administrators have an attitude and misuse their tools? Yes. Is there always a route to overcome and resolve conflict? No, not always. Is that frustrating? Yep. But some editors do try. Guy is one of them. The fact is this is about a conflict not having to do with content. An abusive admin is not a content dispute. Claiming you were unjustly blocked is not a content dispute. Complaining about an admin on AN is likely to be seen somewhat skeptically by most unless a clear cut case and seems to be a dead end to many and don't bother. Should there be some other options? I think so. OK...now what?--Mark Miller (talk) 02:09, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jimbo, I hope you agree that the Fleishman-Hillard article was being massaged by COI editors in 2013, so I made notice of it. Any chance you could talk to their human resources folks to put out a reminder not to violate the Bright Line Rule? - Checking the checkers (talk) 15:40, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Given the nature of the edits, and the overall status of the article, I think "massaged" is too strong. Yes, it would have been better had they followed the best practice of the "Bright Line Rule". The article still needs a great deal of work. I've made a small start on it myself. I hope you will be interested enough to do the same.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 16:51, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Why is Wikipedia thinking it must "describe" anything, in the first place? Who cares about an unimportant public relations and marketing agency? Why does this "description-mania" lead to people wasting their time they could use for a much better cause? --37.230.16.36 (talk) 00:49, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

1.) Is it currently down? Yesterday I made some edits that contravened the "trusted editor's" POV-thoughts and now I am not able to go there, at all? Could someone please check whether he/she can go there, at this moment? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.230.16.36 (talk) 00:44, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

2.) de.wikipedia.org is down (at least for me) and I coincidentally made an edit rebuking the same user for manipulating comments, changing their order on the talk page etc.

3.) and as my IP is somehow changing almost on a daily base, this means that either all other users being at the same provider or in the same region now have the same problem... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.230.23.56 (talk) 01:04, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So there are people who not only have found that there is CFD, but actually know what it is supposed to do (unlike about 99% of all internet users visiting Wikipedia), and these people make comments like this: "....I believe these categories should be deleted. While slavery is unacceptable by todays standards, in the past it was as common, natural, and trivial as owning a TV set today." "This is basically an anachronistic slur. Owning slaves was unremarkable in many (perhaps most) times and places" One could think Wikipedia's inner circle contains some overly uneducated, dehumanizing and unethical people... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.230.16.36 (talk) 00:54, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So he stated on the talk page of an article for several years the following comment:

"This article is concluded, linguistically as well as in respect of content and needs no further editing" http://de.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Diskussion:Robert_Falcon_Scott&diff=118537931&oldid=118534541

Next step, two editors remark

a)"...So you think that any new insight or valid argument on the matter should be ignored and the community should be ommitted any substantial renewal...?

b)"How can the article be completed when there are so many flaws (*lists up a vast series of shortcomings)

(see link above)

Then this user "Jamiri" just deletes his comment of trying to discourage the community from editing, deletes important passages from the other two editor's comments and leaves only fragments that have nothing to do with the original context.

And when trying to correct this, he's lying and telling that those comments were old and had no place although the fragments currently on the disc were posted on the very same day... http://de.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Diskussion:Robert_Falcon_Scott&diff=prev&oldid=127111946 unbelievable.

As if this was not enough, he even dares to file a vandalism report, where he personally attacks me and accuses me of "hallucinations", "delusion" and "muddleheadedness" and the responsible admin rebukes him on his own talk page of not using such kind of words. http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benutzer_Diskussion:Hansbaer#Wahnvorstellungen --37.230.23.56 (talk) 02:08, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verhalten_im_Notfall

Topics include

Announcement of a suicide

Announcement of a crime

Seems like a lot of people feel treated in a very just and fair way by Wikipedia, its administrators and trusted editors...