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]

You made me look, dammit.  :-)   ippedia.com (expired at end of 2013 and on-hold now during the redemption period), ippedia.org/.net (deleted previously and available again now), ippedia.info/.biz/.us (never registered before). Anons, greener pastures could await, for only pennies a day!

  p.s. And hey, 37, methinks you should look of the definition of coercion. Offering the best product for the lowest price is not coercion, nobody is forcing you to buy what wikipedia is selling, it is free-as-in-freedom enterprise. You could argue that wikipedia is subsidized by the state, since we are registered as a non-profit and thus don't pay taxes, but that is a bit of a stretch. Wikipedia could convert our legal status into a multinational corporation tomorrow, and still pay no taxes, as long as we picked our jurisdiction with a bit of care. There is an open proposal to do something like that, in fact. See meta:Wikimedia_Forum#Conclusion:_STOCK_MARKET_LAUNCH for Miriam's idea, and take it easy with the snark please, she has six edits to her name so far. Interesting gedanken, if nothing else. — 74.192.84.101 (talk) 12:29, 3 February 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]
  • I can't tell if you're being serious or sarcastic. Adding it to those presidents was clearly a case of WP:OC. On the other hand, there probably are people whose main business was closely related to owing slaves, so the category would be justifiable for some. We do have Category:slave traders for example. But it's best to name categories such that they are difficult to use (misapply) in drive-by OC manner. Someone not using his real name (talk) 21:01, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • This actually cuts both ways. For example, Pierre Victor, baron Malouet was a plantation owner (worked by slaves), but because of the non-existent "slave owners" cat, he was added to "slave traders", even though his trading in slaves was probably incidental to his main business of owning (buying) them for his plantations. Someone not using his real name (talk) 21:17, 3 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]
                • ASW, the context does not lend itself easily to a post as a troll. Reading it as a PA is perfectly reasonable, considering Carrite has not replied. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:20, 3 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 agree with Demiurge1000. It's a shame that the only Wikipedia criticism site is dominated by paid editors to the extent that it is. Coretheapple (talk) 11:55, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Highly inappropriate.--S Philbrick(Talk) 18:08, 4 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]

• Did the IP admit to being a banned editor? They appear to be complaining about edits that are 7-8 years old, done when I was a newbie and didn't understand much about Wikipedia, done within my first several hundred edits (which now total over 30,000 I think). Much of what the IP alleges is flat out false and the rest is distorted or presented out of context. But there is a bit of truth. I have freely admitted that I did a bit of link spamming when I first arrived here. After a while I learned what Wikipedia was about and changed my style long before my RFA. Jehochman ^Talk 04:27, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So, sir, do you have any amendments to make to your purple prose about "lying through omission" directed towards other people when you yourself claim not to participate in paid editing yet have participated in the past in the editing of WP pages on behalf of clients without making appropriate talk page or user page disclaimers? We're waiting for you to come clean. Or to resign your tools, which would be the honest thing to do. Carrite (talk) 04:38, 3 February 2014 (UTC) last edit: Carrite (talk) 04:43, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I guess you are really mad at me I will not fight with you. See my statement above. Ask as many times as you like. That's my answer. Jehochman ^Talk 04:53, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:REDACT— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 06:04, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, since you seem interested in dragging me into this, perhaps you'll also be interested in my thoughts on the subject. Stay tuned, I've got quite a few of them. 28bytes (talk) 05:32, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Stay tuned, but change the channel, I guess :-). --SB_Johnny | ^talk✌ 17:33, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Jehochman let's do some calculations please. You started editing wikipedia in 2005. For how long have you been a newbie? this AFD is from 2011 (less than 3 years ago). I hope you're not going to deny you had COI with the subject of the article? Also you started this article in 2007 the year of your RFA. You last edited it in 2009. The subject of the article is involved with you. You wrote this article in December of 2006 less than a year before your RFA. Also please tell me what is false in my summary and please provide a diff, where you "freely admitted that you did a bit of link spamming when you first arrived here"? 50.174.100.208 (talk) 05:06, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have 30,000+ edits. If you want to troll through them for the occasions where I have talked about some of my (bad) early edits you can. I have better things to do than entertain a banned editor. Second, I have no conflict of interest with Aaron Wall. He's some guy notable in my industry. I have no connection with him. Jehochman ^Talk 05:10, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

One more thing... Take a look at the WP:COI page history from 2005-2006. It was very different then from now. It was called the Vanity Guideline and focused on warning editors not to create fluff pieces about non-notable people and bands. Over time the page became stronger. It is very wrong to apply 2014 standards to 2005 editing. Of course, your purpose isn't fairness or objectivity, is it. You weren't banned because your editing was fair, collegial, and high quality. Jehochman ^Talk 05:29, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have no conflict of interest with Aaron Wall How strange you say so.

Now, you'd like to talk about 2005-2006? Let's talk about 2005-2006.

• Here's the post you removed from your talk in 2005. Even back then you were asked to stop advertising.
• Here is the tread about your spamming from 2006
• This AN/I thread about you is from 2007.
• This thread questioning your possible COI editing is from 2009.
• And here your "friendly" response on the question about your paid editing from 2013 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.174.100.208 (talk) 06:58, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So as you see see

1. many different editors were questioning your editing habits during the years.
2. The COI and spamming policies were not so much different in 2005/2006 than they are now.
3. You have never admitted you wrote articles about and on behalf of your clients.

But of course it is 2014 now. You cannot go on with your spamming as you did before,but you're still helping your clients with their Wikipedia entries only now you adopted a different approach. 50.174.100.208 (talk) 05:42, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

How clever. Posting my nefarious plans in the open like that. Jehochman ^Talk 08:30, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I had never come across Jehochman before his October 2013 most unsavoury and arrogant attack and attempt to defend a major case of paid advocacy by tarnishing a practically univolved admin's reputation at ANI, I have serious concerns about his suitability for adminship as an admitted spammer and the way he conducts himself in discussions. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:51, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

More sour grapes. Join the party. We can make vinegar. Jehochman ^Talk 08:25, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not sour grapes - it if were, I would have escalated at the time; your behaviour was beyond the pale considering the conduct vested in you at your RfA. I am simply reinforcing that issues concerning your participation on Wikipedia and as an admin are far from isolated. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:37, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I criticized your admin action. Was your action sustained or overturned? Jehochman ^Talk 08:40, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You didn't criticise anything, you simply launched forth with multiple arrogant, blatant, unprovoked personal attacks and disparaging conjecture both on my talk page and again at ANI with a disingenuous 'striking' of one of your comments. My action was of course sustained by a plurality of the community as you are perfectly aware from your persistent defense of the spammer concerned. We refrained from making an issue of your action at the time although it certainly raised concerns in various quarters. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:14, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We? Who else do you refer to? You seem to suggest that I connected to the spammer. Do you have any evidence, or is that just an assumption of bad faith? Jehochman ^Talk 09:38, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Enough solid evidence to embarrass you in the light of this current discussion, so I'm not going to list the diffs here - that will be for the day if and when someone finally escalates. Before calling 'bad faith' I suggest therefore that you stop pretending you don't know what I'm talking about and review the issue concerned - it was far too important as one of the series of paid advocacy cases to have escaped your memory. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:55, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Jehochman, please indulge a question from me. Do you believe you can be an effective administrator without community trust? It seems that confidence in you has significantly waned and I presume you have noticed this fact.—John Cline (talk) 09:44, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support last sentence and need for question to be answered. DeCausa (talk) 10:00, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty much retired and use admin tools very little. I no longer have much to time for Wikipedia as anybody can see from my edit history. I don't think the handful of opinions in this thread represent the community. There are many editors who avoid drama and won't comment here. To sum it up, I am not doing anything contentious with my admin access. Jehochman ^Talk 10:10, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So, you should be trusted to keep the tools because you're not going to use them? DeCausa (talk) 10:26, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

With a regular editing pattern of over 1,000 contribs since October, I would hardly consider that a retirement or even a semi-retirement. However, with all due respect to John Cline for at least posing the question raised by the anonymous OP, and taking into consideration Jimbo's '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,' I feel the question is a leading one and which Jehochman would only feel obliged to answer at an official venue. There are however other ways of avoiding the nascent drama. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:50, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The accusations are not accurate, and that's all I need to say if the issue is raised again. When edits are 7-8 years old they are ancient history. The newest thing mentioned was 2011 and that complaint is absurd. The best way to avoid wasteful drama is not to extend the thread. I'm sure many wise editors have seen this discussion and made that decision. Jehochman ^Talk 12:00, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I will leave it to others to decide whether I am wise or not, but my confidence in you as an administrator - already at a very low ebb - has now dropped to none at all. You had several opportunities to prevent that, but the nature of your replies here has sealed the deal. — Scott • talk 15:12, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Jehochman, you wrote this article in 2013 Ugo Colombo (real estate). May I please ask you who asked to write this article, and by what means. Did somebody ask to write the article on Wiki or off Wiki? Thanks.50.136.134.129 (talk) 16:00, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't recall starting that article. Check the article history. Somebody asked me to look at it for BLP violations. Don't remember where the request was made. Could we relocate this discussion to my talk page? Jehochman ^Talk 18:28, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Let me please refresh your memory:

• "Somebody asked for technical help to create a disambiguation page. I've started the smallest possible stub with just a few facts. There appear to be reliable sources https://www.google.com/search?q=ugo+colombo that can be used to complete the article. Jehochman Talk 18:51, 17 January 2013 (UTC)"
• "Hi talk page lurkers. Somebody wanted to start an article at Ugo Colombo (real estate). I provided a bit of technical assistance, but this article needs content review, and we need to answer the question whether this is a proper topic for an article (notable) or not. If anybody watching my talk page wants to help out, that would be good for Wikipedia. Jehochman Talk 19:37, 28 January 2013 (UTC)"
• "I don't recall starting that article. Check the article history. Somebody asked me to look at it for BLP violations. Don't remember where the request was made. Could we relocate this discussion to my talk page? Jehochman Talk 18:28, 3 February 2014 (UTC)"[reply]

So you gave three different versions about starting of the same article, which you did just a year ago. Which one is the correct one? And once again I repeat the question: Who asked to write the article, and by what means it was done. Thanks.50.136.134.129 (talk) 19:14, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mysteriously, this request does not appear in a search for "Ugo Colombo" outside mainspace. So where, then, is it supposed to have taken place? — Scott • talk 22:21, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Also, Jehochman, while you're trying to remember a history of writing Ugo Colombo (real estate), here's one more question:

Above in this very thread you stated One more thing... Take a look at the WP:COI page history from 2005-2006. It was very different then from now. It was called the Vanity Guideline and focused on warning editors not to create fluff pieces about non-notable people and bands. Over time the page became stronger. It is very wrong to apply 2014 standards to 2005 editing. Here's a warning you gave to another user for the "spamming" of the article Squirrel. So it looks like even back then, in that ancient 2006, you knew that spamming on Wikipedia is not allowed, did you not, Jehochman? This warning has two other problems as well:

1. the editor has never added any links to Squirrel
2. You warned the editor who has not spammed about spamming just a little bit later after you, Jehochman, added spam links to an article and wrote a spam article, and on the same week you wrote this article on behalf of your client.

Don't you think your conduct looks kind of unclean, and not only in 2006, but also now in 2014? 50.136.134.129 (talk) 20:21, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jehochman may have done some dubious things. But listing some companies that already have articles as examples of manufacturers of a certain type of products is hardly spamming. And neither is writing a stub about a NYSE WP:LISTED company (Intermec). Creation of Lyrtech was indeed more questionable. EE Times is pretty indiscriminate with their coverage. A single article there doesn't really speak of notability; see TTRAM for example. The ref he used wasn't even an EE Times article proper but a press release [3]. But I suppose those were the early days of Wikipedia and a lot of stuff like that happened, admins or no admins. It seems the community didn't care much about such things back then when giving the tools. Someone not using his real name (talk) 21:52, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There's a problem with your statement: Intermec is a client of Hochman Consultants, Argos USA has no article. New article Argos has nothing to do with an old article written by Jehochman about his client. That old one was deleted although Jehochman himself closed the AFD as "keep". So get this: Jehochman writes the article, votes to keep it, closes the AFD as "keep" and accuses the nominator of of "wikistalking" and vandalism., and yes, the community cared about such things . Please read the whole thread and hit the links50.136.134.129 (talk) 22:10, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If the community cared, how did he make admin? Did he buy the bit? Someone not using his real name (talk) 22:12, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It was much easier to pass RFA back then. Besides Jehockman lied, when he was responding a question about COI editing (please read the beginning of the thread). Also please see this. These links are not to Wikipedia articles, but to the companies websites, with at least some of them his clients. 50.136.134.129 (talk) 22:18, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the diff you gate the first time around [4] used internal links. Did he create all those company articles thereafter? Besides Intermec, were any other of those his clients? Someone not using his real name (talk) 22:23, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

How was the old Argox (company page) deleted anyway? I can't find a 2nd AfD for it. Apparently it was by self-WP:PROD in 2007 [5], which was technically improper because the page had survived an AfD in 2006. Were they no longer his client at the time? Someone not using his real name (talk) 22:28, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As for the 2007 RfA, did he bribe all these editors to write such superlative assements of him "one of the finest up-and-coming Wikipedians at this website, period", "Precisely the type of person we want as an admin. Lots of consistent editing over the past few months", "Stronger than possible support. [...] What better way to deal with it than to have someone on our side who knows the ins-and-outs of the business?", "Fully qualified candidate, no significant issues"? If you read the RfA carefully, apparently he ingratiated himself with a large segment of active wikivoters by being a wiki-spearhead against Scientology. Does that say something about the community's priorities (at the time)? Quid pro quo or easy-to-manipulate/fools? Somewhere in between? Half-and-half? Someone not using his real name (talk) 22:38, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot respond your question about the clients. Jehochman states at his user page: "No, I can't provide you with my client list, because that's valuable, proprietary information, and in many cases subject to confidentiality and no publicity agreements." So I found only very few of his clients, the early ones (I guess) that somehow got overlooked, when Jehochman was not yet so careful.

I am not sure how he passed RFA. A year later he withdrawn his candidacy from the arbcom election My candidacy is causing more heat than light at this point. Thank you." - he says. Two years later he got only 38.6% votes in his bid for the arbcom. I don't think he would have passed his RFA if he run today or even before the thread was started. 76.126.141.41 (talk) 01:08, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that could cut both ways. Portraying himself as strongly anti-Scientology would definitely make him extremely unpopular with some people at a certain off-wiki criticism messageboard... oh wait... --Demiurge1000 (talk) 23:17, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You mean the off-wiki criticism messageboard where everyone hates kittens, puppies, and small children? Hopefully there's another one somewhere that knows you're full of hooey. --SB_Johnny | ^talk✌ 00:36, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP has always been short of admins, so most of the RfA regulars will enthusiastically vote in support unless someone gives a compelling, or seemingly compelling, reason why the candidate is not suitable. I know this by experience. When an "ah-ha!", pejorative reason is given, the RfA regulars will often turn on the candidate with equal enthusiasm. By not being completely straightforward in his presentation and responses to questions, Jehochman appears to have avoided giving them a compelling reason to vote no. Cla68 (talk) 00:13, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm no fan of paid editing, but these allegations are all so far back in the past; many of the edits being scrutinized took place before current policies on COI came into effect. Is there anything recent that may be problematic? If not, then what's the cause for concern? The forum posts that started this (like much of the content on that webpage) reek of personal vindication and revenge. Unless hard evidence is given of recent paid editing, this is a low priority COI case at best. Why don't we focus on exposing the paid editing that goes on every day instead of scrutinizing 8 year old edits? ThemFromSpace 02:21, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We're dicussing them because they are still relevant today, and the user who made them is now an administrator, making them relevant. KonveyorBelt 02:28, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Besides there's this article from 2013 Ugo Colombo (real estate), and we still don't know who and where asked Jehochman (or someone else) to write it although we do know who asked Jehochman to write Clay Johnson (technologist) in 2010. I believe I would not be mistaking to assume it was Clay Johnson (technologist) himself or a very good friend of his76.126.141.41 (talk) 03:03, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Complicated questions, but one thing is clear: Jehochman did not lie in response to the question "...How do you combine your role in that industry with your editing here while avoiding any conflicts of interest?" at his RfA and it's not fair to characterize him as having done so. He said "I've been an outspoken critic of link spammers and those who would abuse Wikipedia..." and so on. And he is. You could say that he changed the subject, maybe. But nothing in his answer constituted a promise not to edit for clients, only not to do so in a spammy and abusive manner. (I'm not saying that he does, just that he didn't promise not to.)

However, he also answered the question "Would you add yourself to Category:Wikipedia administrators open to recall?" with "I have intended to do so because many of the admins I respect are already members of that list. There's nothing to lose and a lot to gain." I guess I'd take that as a "yes", so he can be reconfirmed for any reason, if people really want this. AFAIK Jehochman didn't specify any particular parameters so presumably this defaults to the Wikipedia:Administrators open to recall/Sample process, therefore you'd need six editors (with standing) to request a reconfirmation RfA. Herostratus (talk) 04:38, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, outspoken critic of spam as in "do as I say, don't do what I do". After investigation using reliable sources (alas all in French), this revision [6] of the wiki page of Lyrtech certainly looks like typical PR spam: very rosy picture of the company, based only on press releases and which turns out should have had huge caveats based on independent sources. The company was for instance operating at a big net loss just as they were getting that award for record revenue growth. An they had been close to bankruptcy in 2002. And their IPO was accompanied by a 25% crash on the day of the launch. (All of these were reported in the mainstream Canadian press.) But all sins are forgiven if Mr. SEO admin banhammered a Scientologist or two and professes to hate spam. Should we ask Morning277 if he hates spam? Someone not using his real name (talk) 05:05, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Herostratus, Jehochman also said: "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." He has made "phony, COI contributions" before and after that statement. For example, he created this article in 2007, the year of his RFA. Of course it is a phony COI contribution. It's how the article looked by the end of 2007 Almost all references were blogs, some her own blogs, and Jehochman and the subject of BLP know each other rather well. Even now the article is hardly any better. Some links are broken, other links are blogs. And it is only one example. So, I do believe that a user who claims he strongly discourages all forms of astroturfing (phony, COI contributions), at the very same time doing this himself is a liar.76.126.141.41 (talk) 05:29, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah that page looks like typical spamcruftvertizement. Don't see how it was any different than the page of, say, Michael Adams (graphic designer). Except that if you tried to AfD it at the time, Mr. SEO admin's hardened anti-S wikibattle friends (who also wrote posts for SEO blogs) would have blocked you as an obvious sock of User:!!. Someone not using his real name (talk) 14:18, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, yeah, but. All this stuff, and we've been seeing a lot of this sort of stuff on this page lately, puts me in mind of Kenneth Starr and Bill Clinton. It matters whether people are coming from a place of "Here's a proximate problem and let's address it" or "How best can I cause trouble for the Wikipedia" or "How best can I expose the horrifying truth that the Wikipedia is populated by imperfect human beings". It matters to me. I haven't drilled down on the material presented above -- I'm busy -- but I'm not going to take it on face value. I gave you a link to a process to follow if you think it's called for to initiate a community re-assessment of Jehochman's admin status. Use it or don't, but either way pipe down, wouldya? Herostratus (talk) 15:26, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you ever wondered why so many pop stars and TV shows have such well-maintained wiki pages, see the last part of [7] (about Comedy Central using wikipedia to promote their stuff: [Wikipedia] is "a top 5 traffic driver" [for them], they "are saving $20K a month by using wikipedia and the traffic is coming to comedycentral.com. [...] Wikipedia editors become decision makers. [...] If you are marketing content, make sure what is appearing in wikipedia."); info thanks to another SEO in a round-table discussion that aforementioned senior admin took part in. Someone not using his real name (talk) 23:12, 3 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)

An essay by Essjay, one of the biggest beeess emeffs in the history of doubleupee. Consider the source. Carrite (talk) 04:29, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

--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]

It's not exceptional. Been editing for 6+ years, with 25K+ edits to articles (a lot of them brought up at WP:ANI and WP:BLP so some degree of controversy is implied), disagreed with established users and admins, and have never been blocked on purpose. The "trick" is to stay calm and civil, be aware of WP:BRD, and make use of Wikipedia's dispute resolution mechanisms (talk pages, noticeboards, WP:ANI, etc.). If no one seems inclined to help you out, perhaps the issue isn't as big as you think it is. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 05:51, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well I hope you were never blocked on accident. Many of those routes you mention are strictly content venues, where ANI is for administrative intervention...where an admin has to step in, and BLP of course is to get more eyes and opinions on a situation or article of concern that are not within BLP policy and guidelines (something very importan) but not a conflict venue. It isn't as much a trick to stay calm, but a trick to know exactly where to take your issue, if you're very sure it is an issue. The best one can do now is find a trusted admin who you can seek some assistance in an informal or formal manner. If your issue is another admin, then you have the AN board where you can formally complain about a specific administrator. But that can make new comers and even some old timers think twice since you are reporting an admin...to an admin. I've worked a good deal through our DR mechanisms, there is no conflict resolution. Just "Dispute" resolution and we define a dispute on Wikipedia as being "content" issues. If two people are simply unable to get along and have active conflicts, we don't tend to deal well with the situation and seems to blow up and end up at arbcom. Everything shouldn't be a "High court" decision and yes...I do see arb com as such, whether that be true or not, but they are our equivalent of a high court of peers. Not a knock against them, just that maybe all such conflicts need not end up on their plate.--Mark Miller (talk) 06:30, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As for me, 26,000 edits, 36% to article space, and I've never been blocked, and not even come close. I've never had an adminstrator say a mean word to me. My secret? I do my best to follow policies and guidelines, I don't edit war, I try hard to be polite and helpful, I compromise, and I try to resolve disputes instead of escalating them. When things get nasty, I take a break. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:54, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"A little rudeness and disrespect can elevate a meaningless interaction into a battle of wills and add drama to an otherwise dull day." --Calvin, of Calvin and Hobbes

--Guy Macon (talk) 08:24, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia attracts people of varying type and situation. Some with different ways of interacting in this medium of text only. Everyone acting perfectly after hours of research, writing, copy editing, etc. is not always going to happen. It can tire a person out quickly when someone decides to challenge something you feel has legitimate value, sourced reliably etc.. We can expect the best, but we have to admit imperfection exists, help guide it and allow some venting. We can only learn and grow when given the room to make mistakes. Mistakes can always be overcome. Mistakes can always be corrected. In the time I have been on Wikipedia I have learned how to avoid content disputes in a number of ways to avoid content issues needing intervention or mediation. It took a number of...less than cordial exchanges that, eventually, everyone was able to apologize for their own behavior...even after, what I thought would simply be the end of all enjoyment on Wikipedia for me. But then I realized that if I was not going to have fun, I might as well admit I was being an idiot for my part and leave it to the others to decide how next to reply. Given the opportunity, most people choose peace and forgiveness...even if the situation is never forgotten. It isn't a zen thing. People just have to naturally find their routes and some personalities may clash and need a lot of room to understand where the other is coming from and how best to work with whatever new tilt that editor may be adding. Maybe that just takes imagination to be able to see how something might work or maybe just patience, but I have blocks. I am not ashamed of them. They're there for the reasons they are there whether they were or were not exactly as black and white as "Doing something wrong". I don't hold much weight to a block log. not really. I have worked well with editors who have never been blocked, and why not be proud of that? However...I have worked with editors very well who have logs the length of a feature article. If you are really attempting an honest contribution to content, most good editors can see that and find a way to compromise if they don't agree with it.--Mark Miller (talk) 13:29, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I've been blocked by accident (the admin got me instead of the spammer I was dealing with). But I saw the situation for what it was and had a laugh about it. Much better than trying to stir up drama. And WP:BLPN can occasionally turn into quite the conflict venue, with editors disagreeing on how the policy applies to certain situations and each side wondering about the "competence" of the other. Most boards act the same way, with different areas of focus. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:11, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I have volunteered on a lot of the boards including BLP. Yes, I cannot deny that they can all have their fair share of drama. DR/N, RS/N can be as overwrought as AN/I and some of the worse RFAs. But I would not label them as conflict venues. I very much see conflict as between people and disputes being about content. I separate these as I might in conflict/dispute resolution at a job. A conflict is between people, a dispute is about how to proceed on a project.--Mark Miller (talk) 14:41, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The most vicious conflicts, and the ones that make Wikipedia such a vicious place are (indirectly) about content. Gangs centered around ideologies seeking to mis-use the system to deprecate editors who they perceive to be ideological opponents. North8000 (talk) 15:13, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps, but I feel the conflicts between editors who just can't let go, and seem almost obsessed with each other damages the encyclopedia the most.--Mark Miller (talk) 16:20, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there are certainly those too. But in that case they are likely to get stopped because they are violating (vs. using) the system to try to harm other editors. North8000 (talk) 18:03, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What is the likelihood that two, well established content creators in a conflict, would be stopped? First, the question is kinda...what exactly can the community control with a conflict that continues. Even when direct steps are taken we know that conflicts between two editors, that is not content driven can even fester and continue when bans are enacted and make feelings worse, eventually just spilling over again on one board or another leading to blocks and eventually site bans. Not the best editor retention route we could be taking for conflict resolution. Although those registering such grievances have to understand that diffs, not being supplied during a an AN/I ban vote may be a technical issue of little merit. Wikipedia has very few bright line rules. I would expect a request for admin intervention to require some form of diff just to make it easy for the admin to see the issue, but when creating a community ban discussion....? By that point, many times, everyone is already very familiar with the issues. Graciously accepting one's fate for the moment is kind of a community wide test to see how the editor handles meeting the immovable object. I have seen editors lose it upon being temp blocked or just topic banned after a community !vote. It isn't fun to be on the long end of the stick. And there are those wonderful types that react by grave dancing. In short, it is actually unlikely that all conflicts will be stopped and even one really big conflict handled badly can lead to hundreds of editors either leaving or not registering, making them walk away and not return. Over time extending such conflicts can effect thousands of potential articles, contributions and improvements to the project. I just wonder if the one thing being asked from the OP (as I read it) of whether or not there should be some way to allow a more "freer flow of comment" is valid. Such questions should always be tempered with the understanding of our policies and guidelines however, because our policies and guidelines as well as our 5 pillars are a lot like Wikipedia's constitution.--Mark Miller (talk) 23:36, 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]

While I'm generally sympathetic to this sentiment, this company apparently has 111 offices in 29 countries. It's not a small local company.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 05:18, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There was definitely some COI editing, but in my view not enough to warrant a COI tag. I've taken it off, but if anyone feels strongly about it he or she can put it back on and I won't beef. The norm in articles on PR people, I've noticed, is that they have the "feel" of autobiographies. This one does not, and apparently at one point was dominated by criticism. Generally speaking this article needs a lot of expansion. So much of what is there and what was removed is ten+ years old. Checking the checkers, just out of curiosity, why did you choose to raise the issue of the article here? Coretheapple (talk) 10:55, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I raised the issue here because I knew of Jimmy Wales' newsworthy discussions held with Bell Pottinger, another PR firm that he was not pleased with their editing practices on Wikipedia. What I opted not to mention yesterday was that Fleishman-Hillard IP addresses haven't just been editing their own Wikipedia article, they have been editing their clients' articles; especially, Vocera Communications, Moxidectin (client is Bayer Animal Health), Papa John's Pizza, and Ford City Mall (client is US Equities Realty). I didn't want to pile on too much, and perhaps that was smart, given that Jimmy doesn't seem to think Fleishman-Hillard's editing is terribly egregious. Even Jimmy's own recent deletion from the FH article complained that "the source is broken", even though a working link could have been easily found. Maybe it was more convenient to lock targets on a paragraph discussing the Labour government, when Wales' new business venture (The People's Operator) is closely tied with the Labour government? We really can't know for sure, can we? - Checking the checkers (talk) 15:21, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not at all sure what you are trying to imply. You didn't mention the other edits, so I had not and have not (yet) looked at them. Why didn't you mention them? I'm glad you found a source, but that particular passage appears to have virtually nothing to do with Fleishman-Hillard anyway, nor does it appear to reflect either positively or negatively on the Labour Party. There is no suggestion in the article that Fleishman-Hillard has or had the Labour Party as a client, nor is there anything particularly unusual or interesting about a large PR firm putting out a briefing to their clients about political developments and what they may mean for corporates. If you could explain, preferably on the talk page of that article, why you think that passage is relevant to the article on this PR firm, that might be helpful. Otherwise your sneering insinuations (which don't make any rational sense at all) should just be dropped.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 19:21, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well as I indicated to Mr. 2001 and other editors raising remarkably similar points a short while back, I think that any and every such concern is welcome to those of us who are not happy with PR influence on Wikipedia. I for one am not concerned about motivations. Again, glad to have you back with us. Coretheapple (talk) 15:47, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jimbo, it's not that I set out to make you look like a grifter and a PR manipulator, but your patent refusal to just come clean when you do something wrong leaves me little choice. The problem is not your feeble strawman that "Fleishman-Hillard has or had the Labour Party as a client". The problem is that you have a conflict of interest regarding the Labour Party. The relevance to the Fleishman-Hillard article of the passage you deleted is not the matter of concern here, it is the fact that you decided directly whether it should stay or it should go. Let me provide you with a few quotes from a famous Wikipedian:

...recent edits are indeed highly problematic from the perspective of avoiding even the appearance of impropriety. I will immediately send an email expressing my concerns and inviting him to come here and explain, and I will urge him to pledge not to do anything like this again. -- Jimbo Wales; 20:26, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The very strong message in any positive collaboration is: there are good people here ready to help you, you don't need to try to brute force it and create appearance of impropriety by editing pages yourself. -- Jimbo Wales; 16:29, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Best practice is to suggest edits on the talk page with full disclosure of your conflict of interest, and then to escalate if you don't get a response. The main problem with even very neutral and boring factual edits is that they can give rise to an appearance of conflict of interest... -- Jimbo Wales; 23:05, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

...to avoid any appearance of a potential conflict of interest, I disclosed my plans to OTRS and further disclosed that it was a personal matter. -- Jimbo Wales; March 2008

Jimbo, on at least four different occasions you have spoken forcefully about the need to avoid the appearance of a potential conflict of interest, yet you recently disregarded your own advice with your editing of Fleishman-Hillard. Now, because we all know you so well, we can predict what your response will be: "Your accusation is baseless, because I don't have a conflict of interest with regard to the Labour Party." Please don't make me trot out the long list of reasons why any reasonable person would conclude that you have a conflict of interest regarding the Labour Party. Instead, just come clean, revert your edit to Fleishman-Hillard, apologize for the edit on the article's Talk page, and ask unaffiliated Wikipedians to handle the matter as they see fit. That is how we avoid the appearance of impropriety or the appearance of conflict of interest. It is the path you ordained for the rest of us, so please just follow it yourself! - Checking the checkers (talk) 15:05, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is not even the remotest appearance of a conflict of interest here. I again invite you to take this discussion to the talk page of the article.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 16:24, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I can imagine why you want to get this discussion off your highly-visible Talk page as quickly as possible, onto a page that gets about zero to two page views per day, on average. But, since I am such a generous and thoughtful person, I have complied with your request. Hopefully the readers who follow that link will see that it is laughable for you to say that "there is not even the remotest appearance of a conflict of interest" when you edit Wikipedia content about the Labour Party, given your long pattern of close affiliation with Labour Party stars and bigwigs. - Checking the checkers (talk) 17:40, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Uninvolved editors need to take a look at that article. It is really crap at present. I can't think of a better word to describe it, and I'm not sure what to do about it. Coretheapple (talk) 21:37, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it is crap. It's a random assortment of facts from several years ago with no real narrative stream or explanation of anything. With 111 offices in 29 countries, surely there's something interesting to say about the company.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 21:59, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe it should be turned into a stub? But some administrator or other person with scrambled egg on his hat ought to do it. Coretheapple (talk) 22:04, 4 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]

Who said that? Link?--Jimbo Wales (talk) 04:55, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I found the page via the search box. Looks like a CFD from 2007? And the users were Cool Cat and Haddiscoe respectively. 37.230.16.36, why do you bring this up now? Ross HillTalk to me! 04:59, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The respective users were already quoted by in a topic above this one, when having read all of my points, one should know...

Neither of whom could remotely be considered "inner circle".--Jimbo Wales (talk) 05:21, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

They have actively contributed deleting an article who is important reflecting the truth and what has happenen in history, building up about 25% of the voices judging to delete both the categories "slave-holder" and a similar one.

Interesting. Who do you regard as "inner circle" and why do those two fail to even remotely get there? 217.28.0.65 (talk) 20:48, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

See above response, I consider those belonging to the "remote" inner circle whose voice is deciding to delete categories that should not be ommited, neither to the community nor humanity as a whole. (and whose deletion is a clear case of blatant racism and approval of oppression)--37.230.25.235 (talk) 05:29, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

They aren't inner circle primarily for 2 reasons. First, neither has made any edits since 2007 (so the inner circle has moved substantially to the left since they stopped editing) and 2nd because neither is an admin. In order to be a part of the "inner circle" one must be an admin. Which of course they say is no big deal...but it is a profoundly big deal....well to them anyway. The problem is once they get it, the only way it can be removed is if they die or stop editing. They are admins forever...like royalty. Even cases of blatant abuse are brushed off or justified. So if you meet one make sure you take a knee and kiss the ring. :-) 138.162.8.59 (talk) 22:51, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Back to editing as an IP again, eh Kumioko? Resolute 23:11, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oh its you! Don't you have an editor to block or an AFD to delete or something? Besides harrassing everyone and accusing them of being Kumioko. Why don't you go Resolutely find something to do! There's no reason to have an account on here anyway as long as abusive admins like you are allowed to harrass logged in editors, abuse the tools and generally act like an ass without any ramifications. No wonder the edit rate in the project is dropping when the admins on this site are allowed to do whatever they want. Everyone knows your a great writer and everyone knows your a complete jerk. You just got the tools back when they were still no big deal. You and I both know you would never pass now. But that statement will probably get me blocked instead of you since I am not an admin it would be against policy to say something negative to an admin. Only admins can do that here. And a look at the comments in your edit history over the last couple months reflect that Resolute. 138.162.8.59 (talk) 23:21, 3 February 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.45.104.158 (talk) [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... --37.230.23.56 (talk) 02:49, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think the German Wikipedia taking extra steps to allow greater checking of their content is uniquely good for them.--Mark Miller (talk) 13:53, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What is the point of this post? The link is to the German Wikipedia equivalent of Wikipedia:Responding to threats of harm and is not a "vandalism report site". It recommends phoning the police when you find threats of crimes or suicide on Wikipedia - and gives the emergency telephone number. --Boson (talk) 20:05, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank You Rassnik (talk) 08:24, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Jimmy, it has been a while, and I'm glad to see you are still with us; none of us are getting any younger are we? - Seems we are doomed to grow old together - in the same city too I hear; never mind, there are worse things in life. Anyway, I'm digressing: I've recently had a run-in on my first attempt at editing at Commons (although I didn't actually realise I was editing at Commons). Whatever, to cut a long story short, you might like to take a look a this [8] not everyone is quite as resiliant and tough as me.  Giano  19:01, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well the impressive thing is that the community there seems solidly on your side.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 21:32, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that is impressive isn't it? - very humbling. Funnily enough, you and I were at nearby tables in the same restaurant once last year; I nearly wandered over to slap you on the back and say "Hi, c'est moi", but then I thought the sound of very expensive dental work crumbling on a fork is never attractive or welcome - so I restrained myself. Have a nice 2014 Jimmy.  Giano  21:38, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you think I have expensive dental work, you haven't looked at too many closeups. :)--Jimbo Wales (talk) 23:43, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

But your American, you all have beautiful teeth, it's only us poor, old Europeans that have characterful, but often startling black and gold grins.  Giano  08:59, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• This explains everything that is wrong with Commons. The nomination read, and I quote, "The resolution really sucks! This graphics editor is capable of far better work than this mediocre crap. Please overwrite with a version that shows your true skills" That isn't even a valid reason for deletion. Now, here on the en-wiki the discussion would have been speedily closed after a flurry of snow. But over there, the editors saw fit to derail the discussion and turn it into about whether the picture could ever be used on an article (a redundant question in and of itself, of course it wouldn't). The discussion was then closed as delete. Forget false consensus, there was an obvious no consensus, with 11 keep and 17 delete votes. Secondly, the nominator blatantly and obviously supervoted. I don't know what the hell is going on over there at Commons, but it's obviously not good. Note that this is not a commentary on the picture itself. The picture can be found on Wikipediocracy at http://wikipediocracy.com/2014/01/26/wikipedia-the-new-ministry-of-truth/ for those who haven't seen it. KonveyorBelt 01:18, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• The problem is that when one uploads a photograph to Wikipedia, Commons can take it and delete it here. Yes, we have the 'keeplocal' template, but many uploaders are unaware of it, and Commons has in the past tried to have the template abolished, so it's a risky, vague science. At present, uploading to Wikipedia, is rather like giving a much loved friend a Christmas present only to find it's been given away to the neighbours who have trashed it and given you the finger at the same time. Of course, we all know that when we sign away all rights, we should cease to care, but human nature is not like that. The simplest solution is to have a definitive template that prevents an image being uploaded to Commons, until that happens, I won't be uploading any more images to Wikipedia.  Giano  09:54, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I think you deserve an apology from Commons. At the same time, some issues are merely technical. It is not Common's decision that all possible media to be hosted in Commons. It was a decision by WMF for making available all of them for all projects. I don't like the way it (the image is hosted and managed by Commons and all related requests and discussions should carry out there) is hidden from laymen. See [9]. Jee 11:29, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Given that photos have to be CC-BY-SA 3.0 and GFDL'd to be usable on Wikipedia, it'd be impossible to prevent it from being uploaded to Commons (Well, we could delete everything and start over under a new licence, but I suspect that's a non-starter). If keeplocals aren't being respected, ask someone in Category:Wikipedia administrators willing to provide copies of deleted articles to undelete it here. WilyD 11:36, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• It is possible to keep the same file here and in Commons, even under same name. So I didn't get what you mean. BTW, "keep local" is not a solution for the problem; it is the right attitude. Jee 11:49, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Uh, reading the whole conversation gives the context. If someone (Giano, say) wants an image kept locally so it can monitored/whatever here, but it's moved to Commons and deleted here, that's a problem with a solution. If someone wants to licence an image so it can't be uploaded to Commons, that's a problem with no solution. So one needs to distinguish what's meant. WilyD 13:19, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to see more pictures "kept local" because they would not be used outside of here. For Commons to insist that they take charge of everything is silly when nobody else would use them anyway. The joke picture of Jimmy in 1984 would not be used on, say, the Chinese Wikipedia. KonveyorBelt 17:05, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Keep Local template does not stop Commons taking the picture; it just stops them deleting it here after they've taken it. In the past there have been attempts to abolish the Keep Local.  Giano  17:15, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Konveyor Belt When you upload a picture, you are agreeing that "...that it is legally okay for anybody to use, in Wikipedia and elsewhere, for any purpose." Not sure why you're not getting this. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:22, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Legally ok" does not equal to "ethically ok"; if it did we would not have or need the "keep local" template. --John (talk) 17:32, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, but expecting people to adhere to the latter distinction is basically hopeless. Either an image is free for anyone to use for any purpose (subject to their own local laws) or it isn't. I don't think the WMF is about to introduce more narrowly-scoped licenses. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:48, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Of course it is legally okay for Commons to use it. That still doesn't mean that they need to. KonveyorBelt 17:34, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There has been a lot of discussion of over the last several months about the Commons, their function and their policy and there seems to be a lot of valid arguments about the way they do things and their content. Which makes me wonder, why do we need to use commons. It should be easy enough to make a bot that pulls the images we want and need into Wikipedia and then we can just cut ties. We can do our thing and they can do theirs. As far as I know and am concerned, the usage of commons is not required and if this community decides we don't want to use it, for whatever reason, then we can implement that change locally as we did with the Visual Editor changes. There is just no reason to continue to fight with them about policy and content issues IMO. 138.162.8.59 (talk) 20:51, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Commons is this great monster that looms over us. We don't need it, and we don't have to have it. Without us, the uploaders, there is no Commons, no Foundation and no Wikipedia. Most of us are here to support Wikipedia and couldn't care less about this other project. If we want to upload images purely to Wikipedia, there is no legal reason why we can't - just that the Foundation says we can't - the Foundation should remember who exactly is keeping it in business - us.  Giano  20:58, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I share many of the concerns expressed here about Commons, but mostly it is about a relatively few admins over there and the inability for Commoners to govern themselves in a reasonable way. Somehow, I don't think the solution is just to cut ties with them, though it might be possible, it would be a major hassle (reclaiming all our pix!). There must be a more civilized way of just keeping them in business and re-organizing the governance. My only suggestion would be to have the Board do a study commission on all the problems, declare "reset" if required, and just reorganize the governance (admins, bureaucrats, rules, and other institutions, etc.) to start all over. "Reset" or "moral bankruptcy" probably aren't the right terms to use - neither is exigency, but there is a word for the effective bankruptcy of a non-profit. In any case, it would take some doing. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 21:34, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think a morale reset is practical any more than doing it here (because this project has a lot of the same problems). I also admit it wouldn't be a trivial thing and that it would be a shame to break ties. It was a shame that VE didn't work too, but we had to do what was right for the project, not what's right for Commons. We have enough of our own problems to deal with here (as do they there) we don't need to compound them by compuonding them together. Maybe we should do an RFC to see what the community thinks should be done. Maybe nothing, maybe something, but we can at least see where everyone stands. Wikipedia by far is Commons biggest customer so if this community puts a little pressure on them, they might straighten up....then we can focus on our own problems again. 138.162.8.59 (talk) 21:40, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• There doesn't need to be a great re-think or even anything retrospective. We just start uploading to Wikipedia and state that images must stay here. It's easy enough to do: I did a trial earlier today File:WBDiseased leaf.jpg. If the Foundation (and it is the Foundation, not Wikipedia making these rules) decide to throw our work back in our faces, then we know what they think of us - don't we?  Giano  21:59, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• While I'm generally sympathetic to people who have had trouble with difficult editors at commons, I don't think this approach is going to fly. A "license" that purports to be a free license, save for forbidding upload to commons, isn't really a free license. That isn't to say that we shouldn't look for solutions, but just that this particular one is not likely to succeed.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 22:04, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Well we won't know until we have tried to fly it. Most of us are here to build and enrich Wikipedia, that has to be the ultimate goal - anything that furthers that goal has to be tried. At the end of the day, this is the important place.  Giano  22:09, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that you tagged it with a non-free license is itself a prohibition on a Commons transfer, since they only accept non-free media; the "don't send me to Commons" banner seems superfluous. I'd even say it's likely someone will send it to Files for Deletion on WP:NFCC #1 grounds. Tarc (talk) 22:52, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I was going to say. The image deletionists will look at that and think "easily replaceable, doesn't pass NFCC". Resolute 23:06, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have tagged this for speedy deletion, as not having an acceptable license. DES ^(talk) 23:16, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A fairly obvious POINT violation, but the tag is valid enough. KonveyorBelt 23:18, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Intentionally uploading a file perfectly well knowing it to have a nonconforming / unacceptable license was at least arguably a violation of WP:POINT. What exactly am I disrupting by tagging such a file for the speedy deletion that current policy mandates? Especially when I notify the uploader, and those who were discussing it, promptly. Note I only tagged it, i didn't delete it. If anyone thinks this improper, remove the tag and decline the speedy, i won't replace it. DES ^(talk) 23:28, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the CSD is any more or less pointy than the upload itself was. Resolute 23:37, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The WP:Image use policy is pretty clear about deprecating non-free Creative Commons licenses. Clearly a license for "Wikipedia only" is more restrictive than CC-by-NC, and so far as I know, we're not accepting CC-by-NC except where Fair Use would apply - am I wrong? Basically, picture the following scenario: suppose a commercial company wanted to release a modified mirror of Wikipedia (say, a 'child-safe' Wikipedia where communication is strictly limited and supervised and certain content is censored, or a complete tourist-ad-sponsored translation of the en.wikipedia into Catalan). Would that company be able to copy the database and put it on the Web as is, with only such modifications as they want to do on their own initiative? Well, not if they have to track down and figure out every "no commons Wikipedia only" nonstandard license tag or be in violation. So I can kind of see the point about ruling this out right at the start. Wnt (talk) 23:44, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The complaints above about how the "Whambo" deletion proves that Commons is badly run are ironic indeed. After all, aren't several of those who argued for that deletion among the crowd that was saying Commons is badly run here before? The bottom line is that Wikipedia, keeping so much content in one place with so little effective mirroring to other sites, has become a valuable resource. Complete with a resource curse, a continual squabble for dominion and deletion of opposing points of view or promotion of content when there is a potential for financial gain. The only meaningful solution to this is redundancy - more backups, so that it remains easy to find any deleted file off-site, making control of the resource less valuable. Wnt (talk) 23:33, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's confirmation bias at its finest, really. People who want to hate Commons will hate Commons just as the people who want to hate Wikipedia will hate it. Myself, I have uploaded hundreds of images to Commons that are used on thousands of articles in dozens of languages. Never had a problem. Rarely had an unacceptable wait time when I identified a copyvio, rarely had a conflict. Resolute 23:37, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Of course Wikipedia should have mirrors of content. It's just that we as people on Wikipedia should have at least some control over such mirrors, rather than a separate bureaucracy that is confusing to new users. KonveyorBelt 23:39, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nay, sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. Commons gets a lot of its content from people who put up content on Flickr under a free license, which is verified by bot, even though later on they change the license to proprietary. I'd like to see someone do Commons the same favor. Wnt (talk) 23:50, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is no sensible or valid reason why an editor cannot upload his/her own work and state that they wish it to remain only on Wikipedia. The WMF may wish it otherwise, but their whims do not necessarily have to take precedence over the wishes of those creating the work.  Giano  00:57, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the whims of Wikipedia to insist that any material that can be uploaded on a free license be done so to allow use by downstream re-users does take precedence over the the wishes of an individual editor. The options you are then presented with fall into three categories: 1. You can accept and upload on those terms. 2. You can choose not to donate images at all. 3. You can try and convince the community to change the image use policies. Resolute 01:29, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

But there is an interesting side point that your three categories don't cover. We can allow people to upload under free licensing terms *and* we can not be jackasses to them if they change their minds. We can and should warn them that the original donation is legally irrevocable, but we can also be humane about not continuing to host something that someone regrets donating - for whatever reason, good or bad. The sometimes-seen stance of "fuck you, you signed a waiver" is just not in keeping with our values.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 04:47, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well funnily enough Resolute quite a lot of people want to change the polices. I just want people to be able to choose for themselves individually per image, but if you want a dictatorial blanket policy - then so be it - we can work towards one  Giano  01:34, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You might as well try to change the policy allow yourself to retain full copyright over your individual text edits as well for all the good it will do. Call it "dictatorial" all you want, your proposal is the antithesis of Wikipedia's mission. Resolute 01:38, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia's mission, at least in theory, is to build an encyclopedia. Creative Commons has a different mission. Plenty of © material (blog entries, etc.) incorporates CC images, so presumably a CC encyclopedia article could include "wikipedia only licensed" images. --SB_Johnny | ^talk✌ 02:11, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia's mission is to be an open source encyclopedia that is freely re-usable. That includes both text and images. We allow fair use images insofar as they are required to be a complete encyclopedia, but the goal is free. You are correct that Commons has a separate mission, but it remains one that is closely linked to Wikipedia's and Wikimedia's overall mandate. That is beside the point, however, as my argument was that it is unlikely that either the community or the WMF will favour moving to a more restrictive image license on Wikipedia that harms the reusability of our content because a couple of people are butthurt about Commons. The phrase "cutting off your nose to spite your face" comes to mind. Resolute 03:59, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I can easily understand the difficulty that Giano faced here. He contributed a media here, believing he has enough rights to do so and later found that it is not his work. So he want it get deleted. Meanwhile it was moved to Commons, our centralized repository, and some people there refused to believe his words of claim. I am not supporting that unfortunate incident; but it will happen even if there is no Commons at all. See, that work was being transferred to de, fr, and many other wikis. Then Giano has to approach all of them and make requests for deletions. Chances that the image being used off-wiki too.

Limiting to an English Wikipedia only license will solve that issue. But then Wikipedia become less useful as many other projects where images can serve only to describe the article. No one (a student, researcher, etc.) can use those images for their assignments or research works.

Another limitation is the lack of supply of enough quality contents. I'm not talking about third party uploads from sites like Flickr. But we have many sister wikis and German and French wikis are roughly the second and third suppliers of media files. How we get connected to those contents? My contributions are negligible; but if no Commons, I had to upload all of my 514 works to Malayalam Wikipedia which is my home wiki and little chances that it will be available for other Wikipedia(s). Jee 02:58, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I have had exposure to the culture at Commons, and had my share of bad experiences there too (as I have had here). Where I choose to participate is my affair and mine alone, and my activity level at Commons has dwindled since same. Whilst it's certainly against the spirit of cooperation that underlies the collaborative nature of the various WMF projects, it's regrettable and understandable that push has come to shove, and users on one project want "divorce" from another because of their collective bad experiences.

  Such problems are usually caused by people (often but not always admins) who are psychopaths sociopaths, or who do not possess or fail to properly use their diplomatic skills, or by people who choose overly-strict interpretations of rules and then carry them out officiously (and often brusquely) whilst refusing to back off or apologise even when they are manifestly wrong.

  We cannot force cooperation, nor can we legally stop Commons from usurping our content. However, there are practical and technical means I employ to "localise" the media. First, I add a {{do not move to commons}} and {{keeplocal}} tag; a {{nobots}} tag helps to slow the transfers from happening. Although it's not very productive use of watchlisting, it helps to watch the media and systematically to be aware of any transfer tags that any drive-by editor might have placed. -- Ohc ^¡digame! 04:30, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • But {{do not move to commons}} is intended only for legal reasons; not for author's interests. So others can neglect it (happened in my case too); if no legal reason prevent it being hosted in Commons. {{nobots}} also don't work as those bots don't edit the file page; they add the "eligible files" to a gallery so that a user can manually move them to Commons. You're right you can have on an eye on the "file usage" and remove it form those "maintenance galleries" whenever you found that your file being included. :) Jee 07:04, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone point me (and others) to the latest discussions about what we might do that day? The last I heard, there was pretty strong support for changing the home page to an all-NPOV special day with educational information about the issues of the NSA, surveillance, etc. And then there was a complicated poll that someone was complaining about, etc. I just would like to know the current state and whether we are ready for (and whether we need) a straight up vote.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 00:52, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A highly-relevant POTD has been reviewed and scheduled for Template:POTD/2014-02-21.
A semi-relevant FA has been scheduled for TFA on Feb 20, while I have not been been able to identify a highly-relevant FA or FL that has not previously been at TFA/TFL.
At least 8 highly-relevant new articles of sufficient size have been nominated at WP:DYKN, but are not yet reviewed and scheduled.

As for me personally, I have no talent for generating consensus for scheduling and have disconnected from that process, focusing my time in the content creation trenches over at WikiProject Mass surveillance. --HectorMoffet (talk) 01:42, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The latest discussions can be found here (feel free to add more if I missed any):

• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Surveillance_awareness_day/RFC
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Surveillance_awareness_day/Archive_2
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Surveillance_awareness_day/Archive_1

The RFC on whether this should happen never started. Ross HillTalk to me! 02:18, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and I would very much support a last minute !vote on this. (Or a "straight up vote" for that matter) Ross HillTalk to me! 02:20, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think the most useful thing at this point would be for some neutral parties to comment on the DYK hooks. The event won't dominate every all the DYKs for February 11 by any means, but it's been very productive at getting some new articles and an even larger number of drafts started abut these important issues. My feeling is that it's less important to support the day's protest per se than to continue getting people involved at WP:WikiProject Mass Surveillance and other related WikiProjects, and above all building the articles. To be honest, a Google News search offers only about 11 results dated more than a few days after the initial announcement, so I don't feel like the activists are going to win the media game this time - it may be that the protest will be seen as a key event by historians, and I think it's important, but I'm not expecting to wake up in a different world on the 12th. To make a difference we need to grow and train our own network of genuine human intelligence (using those last two words not as a military jargon but with their English meaning). Wnt (talk) 04:57, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

They same people who have deleted categories like "Slave-owner" making 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." "This is basically an anachronistic slur. Owning slaves was unremarkable in many (perhaps most) times and places"

have been notoriously been pushing the POV and try to villainize an unarmed, black boy being shot to death in all articles connected to the incident http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shooting_of_Trayvon_Martin — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.230.25.235 (talk) 05:41, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Links please?--Jimbo Wales (talk) 06:03, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Slave owners and Category:Slaveholders while the latter had a discussion with the quotes I cited, but quite frankly, this discussion is gone since I mentioned it, yesterday... --37.230.25.235 (talk) 07:22, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HzeZhCt5PVA--37.230.25.235 (talk) 07:18, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]