User talk:Jimbo Wales/Archive 156

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

Archive 150

←

Archive 154

→

Proposal: Create a Wikipedia-only read-only Tor exit node

We already know one thing we can do to support people's right to read freely without fear that their reading Wikipedia will be used to harass them. We can set up a Tor exit node in Wikipedia's server room, set up so that it can only access Wikipedia and Wikimedia, and with the ability to edit Wikipedia blocked. That way, anyone can read Wikipedia in an untraceable way. --Guy Macon (talk) 05:48, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Support for the implementation of Tor as part of Wikipedia's "fight back". petrarchan47 t c 01:18, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Except Wikipedia bans Tor because admins can't easily catch sockpuppets if they use Tor. You see, Wikipedia and the NSA do have something in common (the NSA usually has to DOS tor users; direct spying on Tor directly being more difficult). Someone not using his real name (talk) 15:50, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Guy Macon's proposal specifically addresses this (read only). Guy, is that idea written up anywhere in more technical detail? �� SJ + 19:13, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

I can write up detailed instructions or even provide an image of a virtual machine that is already set up, but I doubt that the WMF developers need either. I have found them to be extremely competent in the past.

To expand on what I wrote above, the Tor node I am describing would:

Talk to a strictly limited set of domains (Wikipedia, Wikimedia, etc). It would not have access (read or write) to any other domain.

Be blocked from editing Wikipedia or any associated project (Wiktionary, Wikinews) that we may decide to give access to.

Be physically located in one of our server rooms, with a direct (not internet) connection to our servers.

It should have bandwidth throttling. Just being a Tor relay node that is unlikely to be controlled by the NSA has value; every new node increases the security of the network. That being said, we don't want to give the Tor traffic unlimited resources.

Just to be extra careful, we should block read access to any kind of executable file (.exe, Javascript etc.) to make it harder for a Wikipedia editor to compromise a Tor user's privacy. See Tor (anonymity network)#Firefox / JavaScript anonymity attack on Freedom Hosting users.

So, where would one propose such a thing where it has a chance of getting WMF funding? --Guy Macon (talk) 07:06, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

This is imminently wise. No one should have to be afraid to read Wikipedia-- but in many places in the world, such fears are legitimate. To the extent that we can help give people the ability to read without fear, it's not just our duty as wikipedians to provide that help, it's actually our duty has human beings. --HectorMoffet (talk) 07:30, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Unless I have missed something in this thread, it is already possible to visit Wikipedia via Tor. All standard websites can be visited after downloading and running the software. However, clicking on the edit button should produce a message that the IP address is blocked on all wikis (screenshot). One additional possibility would be to offer Wikipedia as an .onion site, but this is not really necessary.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 07:57, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

That would allow the NSA to monitor the traffic between the Tor exit node and Wikipedia. Putting the exit node in our server room does not. See https://www.torproject.org/docs/faq#CanExitNodesEavesdrop --Guy Macon (talk) 08:17, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

True, although the identity of the people generating the traffic should be concealed by the various hops. An .onion site version of Wikipedia should solve this problem, but they are generally very slow to access.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 08:25, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

This sounds interesting to me but I'd like to understand better what is being proposed. I don't think there is any serious question of "funding" per se - this wouldn't cost any significant amount of money. What is the attack vector being contemplated, and against whom, and how would they avoid it by using this?

You can already use Tor to read Wikipedia. You generally can't edit using Tor, or anyway it is difficult, because when we have tried to unblock Tor exit nodes, we face high levels of abuse.
It is said up above that the NSA could monitor traffic between a normal Tor exit node and Wikipedia, but it is unclear to me to whom that would be dangerous. Traffic coming out of Tor exit nodes is already anonymized.
Using SSL means that (subject to some caveats) all the NSA can see is that a Tor exit node is talking to Wikipedia, not which pages are being looked at nor the content of them.
If I'm a Tor user, is it easy for me to specify that I want to use a particular exit node? This is a purely empirical question - I don't know the answer. It just strikes me as very likely that if we did set this up, no one would use it.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 08:35, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia is one of the world's most visited websites, so a dedicated Tor exit node would require considerable bandwidth. It is possible to specify which countries are used for an exit node, and to ban certain countries, but this is generally for the more advanced user.[1] There is also a version of Tor which attempts to disguise the fact that you are using Tor [2], as some countries have learned how to block access.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 08:43, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Regarding "no one would use it" and "it would would require considerable bandwidth" Ian, meet Jimbo. Jimbo, meet Ian. (smile). I will get to the other questions tomorrow - it's late. --Guy Macon (talk) 09:32, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

As promised, here are the answers to Jimbo's questions.

"You can already use Tor to read Wikipedia.

See below.

"You generally can't edit using Tor, or anyway it is difficult, because when we have tried to unblock Tor exit nodes, we face high levels of abuse."

I don't know why this keeps coming up. I clearly specified "read-only" in the title of this proposal, yet people keep telling me why we don't allow Tor write access.

"It is said up above that the NSA could monitor traffic between a normal Tor exit node and Wikipedia, but it is unclear to me to whom that would be dangerous. Traffic coming out of Tor exit nodes is already anonymized."

Assuming that the someone can monitor SSL traffic to Wikipedia from a Tor exit node (more on that below), what you look at on Wikipedia tells a lot about who you are. Imagine a Chinese user using Tor to look at Wikipedia, and assume that the authorities can see what he views but not who he is. He looks up Falun Gong, then Manzhouli (where he lives), then Mongolian Revolution of 1990, then he reads his talk page. From this whoever is doing the monitoring knows exactly who he is and has information that could cause him a lot of trouble.

"Using SSL means that (subject to some caveats) all the NSA can see is that a Tor exit node is talking to Wikipedia, not which pages are being looked at nor the content of them."

The NSA claims to be able to break SSL. See How does the NSA break SSL? for details on a plausible method that they can use to decrypt every past and future connection made from any existing Tor exit node to Wikipedia. If we have our own Tor exit node, they would have to ask us for access, and even if we were forbidden to reveal that fact, at least the WMF legal team would know.

"If I'm a Tor user, is it easy for me to specify that I want to use a particular exit node? This is a purely empirical question - I don't know the answer."

From the Tor FAQ:

Can I control which nodes are used for entry/exit?

Yes. You can set preferred entry and exit nodes as well as inform Tor which nodes you do not want to use.

Finally, answering Ian's concerns about bandwidth usage, I already specified bandwidth throttling in the proposal. We can give the Tor users as much or as little bandwidth as we choose. Also see my question at Wikipedia:Help desk#Can we measure Tor usage?. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:07, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

In 2007, Swedish researcher Dan Egerstad set up a fake Tor exit node and used it to recover various passwords, including the e-mail passwords of embassies.[3][4] This a known attack vector for Tor, and users are advised never to log in via Tor, as they could fall foul of a malicious exit node. Tor uses HTTPS Everywhere which forces HTTPS connections when they are available. This should provide good security when visiting Wikipedia via Tor, but nothing in life is perfect.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 09:43, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

This issue also raises the question of how persons being monitored and/ or oppressed might be able to not only access but edit here without their work being used against them. I understand the reasoning behind block Tor to read only capabilities, but it might be useful to provide access for those wanting to edit with true anonymity in this age of government spying. There is also the problem of persons blocked by Wikipedia improperly who might find the existence of additional accessability useful, but that is another issue. But I do hope the systemic abuses here will be addressed some time soon. Candleabracadabra (talk)

As far as China is concerned, reports from foreign visitors suggest that Tor does not work there because the government knows how to block it.[5] This was one of the reasons for the development of obfsproxy, which is still experimental. --♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:18, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Guy, what you are describing used to be a Tor feature. It was called an exit enclave, but no longer functions in current versions of Tor. Bandwidth limiting is built into Tor and is easy to set up. Blocking content based on the file extension or presence of Javascript isn't something Tor can do by itself.

Ian, people moving from accessing Wikipedia on the public Internet to accessing Wikipedia via Tor would not create more traffic. It would simply change its apparent source. However, I would hope that as more people feel safe that they can read Wikipedia without persecution, it would lead to more people around the world actually reading it, which would, in fact, create more traffic. That would be a good thing. 92.78.150.87 (talk) 19:05, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Jimbo, "Imagine a world..." We aren't there yet. We live in a world where what people read can be and often is used against them. That's the threat model. Tor helps by protecting the identities of millions of people all over the world. Operating a Tor relay costs nearly nothing (a spare box, electricity, bandwidth) and would be an amazing gesture of solidarity with those who believe in open access, freedom of information, and the right to read. Tor is getting a lot of publicity these days, making the cover story of BloombergBusinessweek. [6] Boing Boing runs a Tor relay, and there's still time for you to set one up before 2/11. 92.78.227.136 (talk) 22:55, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

I am all set to make a formal proposal and shepherd it through the system as soon as this thread dies out and gets archived. Realistically we are not going to get this done before 2/11. Wikipedia simply does not move that fast. Our slow, deliberative consensus decision making simply cannot be hurried. For example, an RfC takes 30 days. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:29, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Honest question, is everything that WMF does subject to community approval? What would stop them from simply doing it? 94.222.97.67 (talk) 15:55, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

No, not everything is subject to community approval, and not all requests from the community will be carried out. In this case, as this is really a technical matter, it is unlikely to be a very good idea to request it of the Foundation without first checking with engineering to see if it is something that is reasonable for them to do. (And, I highly doubt that it is.)--Jimbo Wales (talk) 17:22, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

I agree with all of the above, but I am looking at it from a slightly different perspective:

It's not that I think that the WMF is subject to community approval, but that, by choice, I am. I don't want to approach the WMF with "Guy Macon thinks that this is a good idea, and Guy Macon, who claims to be an experienced engineer, thinks that this is technically feasible." What if I am wrong? What if it isn't a good idea? Is there a flaw that I missed? What if it isn't technically feasible? (if it was a tiny microcontroller inside a toaster or a toy or if it was a complex test system for aerospace components I would know exactly what is feasible, but my only experience with internet servers is on systems that are orders of magnitude smaller than Wikipedia). If it isn't, I want to personally kill it before making any proposal. I want to approach the WMF with "Here is evidence that the English Wikipedia as a community thinks that this is a good idea, and the following dozen experienced engineers who edit Wikipedia think that it is technically feasible. and, by the way, I have an offer of technical support from the following Tor developers."[7]
While WMF decisions -- especially engineering/technical decisions -- are not and should not be subject to community approval, it is a demonstrable fact that some folk, rightly or wrongly, get upset when such decisions are made. This leads to hostility on both sides, so why not seek community approval first? There is no deadline.
WMF staff, especially the engineers, sometimes think that they know better what is best for us than we know ourselves. And a lot of the time they are right. Alas, this also gets some people upset and leads to hostility on both sides. In my opinion, this can be avoided be recognizing that the WMF is, at the same time, separate and independent but also members of the community. If I can persuade a WMF engineer or two to articulate why they think something is a bad idea and the arguments are sound, many members of the community will agree, there will be no consensus to proceed, and we can kill the proposal before presenting it to the WMF. And if the WMF engineers agree with the idea, that's a great thing to add to a proposal so that the decision makers at the WMF don't have to check with engineering.

because of the above factors, I plan on seeking community approval. If someone else wishes to just ask them to do it, they are free to do so. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:42, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

You really have no idea how the NSA operates, do you?

Why would they bother intercepting traffic to this web site when:

most of what happens here is publicly logged anyway, so not a suitable venue for conspiratorial enterprises
if Wikipedia has any database mirrors around the globe (and I think it does), the NSA can obtain copies of the entire database in MUSCULAR style (check-user info and all)
if that's somehow not enough, they can QUANTUM their way to some poor WMF sysadmin's account
and if all that fails the can FISA for the entire database anyway, and won't be able to talk about it

Still think Tor is worth a damn for Wikipedia? Someone not using his real name (talk) 13:23, 24 January 2014 (UTC) Oh, and if you think the NSA can't mitm you because you're using SSL (even over Tor), that's also very naive. Someone not using his real name (talk) 13:42, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Nice looking perfect solution fallacy you have there. Have you had it long? It looks really healthy and well-developed. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:06, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes, apparently I did think about it more than you did (unless you are intentionally just looking to create sacrificial lambs from the average Wikipedia readers or you want to DDOS tor, but I AGF that you are not that smart & evil.) The average Wikipedia reader is likely to have their computer pwnd by (some TLA-made) malware as result of using tor [8][9] so it's more likely to be a net negative for them. (Even for the more skilled operators (at a minimum, not using MS Windows [10] and probably disabling JavaScript) tor isn't as peachy as previously thought [11][12]) Even WikiLeaks doesn't say that all their leakers should use Tor, and "Tor is usually VERY SLOW. Page load times of 5-60 seconds are normal. Please be patient." [13] And if you think that will lead more of the average Wikipedia readers to run their own exit nodes, pause and think how many average Wikipedia readers would knowingly want to run the risk of having their home computers confiscated (even just temporarily) when the inevitable child porn gets routed through their home machines. [14] Probably not many. Someone not using his real name (talk) 06:36, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

I have no idea what you are bloviating about, but it has nothing to do with my proposal. I never implied that the average Wikipedia reader should use TOR, much less set up an exit node. You apparently are so wrapped up in creating melodrama that you are not responding to what people actually write. I am not going to read or respond to your comments after this; your snide remarks are not helpful. --Guy Macon (talk) 12:50, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Somebody not using his real name, if you check your sources, you'll find that your conclusions are misleading and laced with your personal opinions. Guy, forums are full of well-informed people out to persuade people against using Tor. 92.78.150.87 (talk) 19:05, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

People should not run Tor exit nodes from their home IP address. The Tor Project does not recommend this following cases where people were raided.[15] A relay can be run from a home IP address, as it does not show up as the source of the traffic.[16]--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 08:52, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

As a side note to this discussion, I'd like to point out that I'm less concerned about spies utilizing "man in the middle" attacks than I am about wholesale surveillance and data warehousing on the general public "just in case" some of them might do something in the future.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 15:26, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, in a typical NSA codename shell game STELLARWIND was closed down... only to be replaced by the much more comprehensive EVILOLIVE, SHELLTRUMPET etc. [17][18]. The fact that Special Source Operations (who does all this) is just a stub, should tell you how much the average person cares about his net traffic being warehoused in order to be Palantir'd later [19]. The main problem with recommending Tor as fix for that is that most people have no idea what it actually does and even people who are supposed to know a thing or two about secure communication used in a way was that actually made them less secure (at least in 2007): [20]: “Egerstad was able to read correspondence belonging to the Indian ambassador to China, various politicians in Hong Kong, workers in the Dalai Lama's liaison office and several human-rights groups in Hong Kong. Egerstad says it wasn't just e-mail that was exposed but instant messages passed internally between workers and any other web traffic that crossed the network. Among the data he initially collected was e-mail from an Australian embassy worker with the subject line referring to an "Australian military plan."” etc. Someone not using his real name (talk) 19:43, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

The NSA Internet metadata db is called MARINA, and of course it doesn't have Wikipedia article--nobody cares, like I said. From [21]: “The Marina metadata application tracks a user’s browser experience, gathers contact information/content and develops summaries of target”. “Of the more distinguishing features, Marina has the ability to look back on the last 365 days’ worth of DNI metadata seen by the Sigint collection system, regardless whether or not it was tasked for collection.” And US citizens are exempt from Marina (or similar metadata collection): [22] "Additionally, metadata about U.S. persons collected in the United States can be used once it is captured. The Supplemental Procedures Governing Communications Metadata Analysis “enables the analytic to chain ‘from,’ ‘through,’ or ‘to’ communications metadata fields without regard to the nationality or location of the communicants, and users may view those same communications metadata fields in an unmasked form.” In plain English: the rules allow the NSA to hold information collected “incidentally” about U.S. persons and use it for analytics." The NSA MARINA guys even came up with cringe-worthy name pattern-of-life analysis [23] (You can even see it in various public resumes on LinkedIn usually abbreviated as POL.) The Palantir stuff the for CIA & FBI is basically the same thing [24], but they have the PR clue not to call it quite that, but rather call it link-and-pattern analysis [25]. Someone not using his real name (talk)

Guy: this is worth posting to wikitech-l. It would certainly make the Tor network slightly stronger; and we do want to support anonymous access to the projects. You might also propose this for a grant on Meta. Request developer time instead of money, and see what happens ;-) – SJ + 19:12, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

I will do that after this conversation comes to an end. Thanks! --Guy Macon (talk) 23:06, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Further thoughts

Nowadays it is very difficult to prevent the NSA and their pals at GCHQ from accessing anything that people do on the Internet, because they already have all the necessary legal powers to do this (just ask Ladar Levison at Lavabit). What is being proposed here - a dedicated Wikipedia Tor exit node - would not add greatly to what is already offered by the existing Tor Browser Bundle with HTTPS Everywhere. Even if the NSA and the intelligence agencies in other countries do operate some of the Tor exit nodes, which is considered to be likely, a dedicated Wikipedia Tor exit node would have to be hosted in a non-US friendly country to have much of an effect. In any case, the NSA presentation Tor Stinks suggests that the NSA has difficulty in de-anonymizing Tor users. This, combined with the Tor Project's recommendation to use end-to-end HTTPS as the default system, means that a separate Wikipedia Tor server is not really necessary. As an example, the search engine DuckDuckGo uses HTTPS by default, and is also available as an .onion site (http://3g2upl4pq6kufc4m dot onion).[26] Provided that Tor and HTTPS are working correctly, the .onion version does not offer a large improvement in security. Instead of asking me for advice (or Jimbo for that matter), it might be better to ask the Tor Project if it believes that a separate Wikipedia Tor exit node is really necessary. People who want to help Tor are better advised to set up bridge relays.[27]--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 14:18, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Let's not forget the symbolic value. Even if the added level of security can be defeated, it seems appropriate for us to at least try to make a Wikipedia anyone can read without fear. --HectorMoffet (talk) 14:40, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

For a United States citizen, the government is similar to Don Corleone, as it is capable of making offers that cannot be refused. Furthermore, the citizen would be unable to reveal publicly that such a request had been made. This is why a Wikipedia exit node needs to be taken with a grain of salt.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 14:52, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

The Corleone family is relevant to a discussion further up this page: you may wish to assist with Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Connie Corleone, which may well be headed for a G13 deletion in the future if it isn't helped along the way. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 15:41, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Either way, I'm not hearing an objection to directing our staff to do anything and everything possible to help our readers, wherever they are, freely read WP without being tracked, to the extent that that's possible. --HectorMoffet (talk) 16:05, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Some points:

Yes, you can configure tor to exit from a specific node (or even set of nodes, like a country) [28][29][30]
Yes, some Tor exit nodes are mitming: [31]: "The researchers built a scanning tool called exitmap that can identify exit relays behaving maliciously or abnormally and ran it on the Tor network. Over a four-month period they identified 25 bad relays that were subsequently reported to the Tor Project and blacklisted. Fourteen relays engaged in man-in-the-middle HTTPS traffic sniffing using fake certificates, four relays did both HTTPS and SSH sniffing and one attempted only SSH sniffing. Two other relays used the sslstrip tool to force HTTPS connections over plain HTTP, one relay injected HTML code in HTTP traffic and three relays engaged in Internet censorship by blocking access to certain websites at the DNS level, intentionally or because of misconfiguration."
If you're a US person, the chances of you being spied on by the NSA actually increase if you use Tor [32]

Hope this helps. Someone not using his real name (talk) 17:58, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Note also that it has been reported that the encryption used by secure sockets and thus by https connections can be broken by the NSA. I have no idea how accurate this report is, but I wouldn't trust https to keep anything secure from NSA intercepts. Such a Wikipedia exit node might have some symbolic value, but I doubt that it would greatly increase anyone's actual security or freedom from eavesdropping by the NSA or any similar governmental organization. DES ^(talk) 18:27, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
- Nobody with actual clearance to the details is talking; Snowden only had clearance to some overview and classification documents. See BULLRUN. Someone not using his real name (talk) 18:32, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
There is a list of supposedly bad Tor relays here. However, a list of this kind is unlikely ever to be complete or up to date. You have been warned:)--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 18:48, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Fundamental issues, recommendations

Tor routing is based on ports, like port 80 (HTTP) and 443 (HTTPS). Tor Exit Routers have to explicitly allow specific ports to allow the passage of traffic over said port, which is done in a configuration policy on the Tor Exit Router (the TORRC file), which tells the rest of the Tor network which traffic you're willing to accept. If you accept only port 443 for example (presuming that only HTTPS traffic should pass), and then on Wikipedia's side block all other https-web traffic that is not a Wikimedia domain, you will literally censor the rest of the internet for any Tor client presuming that port 443 traffic will resolve through that Tor Exit Router. Nothing in the current Tor protocol would allow the Tor network to say-- "only this Tor Exit Router can pass traffic to these specific domains". This would not greatly affect the Tor network, as it would take a little bit of time for said Tor Exit Router to gain consensus, but more importantly, the Tor protocol would recognize said blocking and mark said router as a 'bad router', and it wouldn't pass any Tor Exit traffic at all.
The Tor network, nor the Tor Browser Bundle by itself, does not and cannot enforce "HTTPS-everywhere" or any other kind of protocol tampering, outside of wrapping said traffic in 3 layers of encryption. HTTPS needs to be enforced server-side using HSTS (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HTTP_Strict_Transport_Security).
Some people's comments here are correct-- people can already access Wikipedia using Tor. Tor users are just blocked from editing. Yawnbox (talk) 19:09, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Recommendations

PFS (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forward_secrecy) needs to be used server-side so that surveilled/recorded HTTPS sessions cannot be made into clear-text at a later date if the SSL private key becomes compromised.
What needs to be talked about is allowing Wikipedia to be writable to Tor users. Yawnbox (talk) 19:09, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Re #2: You're joking. Most Internet Relay Chat servers ban access to Tor exit nodes, because of the obvious problems with spam and abuse. Wikipedia's policy is similar.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 19:28, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
Would it be technically feasible to allow editing only by logged-in users who access Wkipedia via Tor, but block IP (non-logged-in) users? DES ^(talk) 19:54, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
- Yes. See Template:Anonblock for the message we typically use, and Mediawiki's help page for blocking IPs for details on what options are available. --Guy Macon (talk) 10:54, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
I support the idea of a read-only Tor exit node for Wikipedia. Sam Beebe ^(talk) —Preceding undated comment added 06:51, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
As long as it doesn't get advertized as some miracle solution for the average reader, who probably won't benefit from it, and might even get trojaned by some TLA soon after setting up tor, I see no reason why not set up such an exit node. There are some technically advanced people would be able to use it properly to their advantage. As Jimbo mentioned though, finding out which pages one reads is not possible without breaking (mitming) SSL if one uses HTTPS. (And you still need to use HTTPS, even over tor.) So the added benefit of tor is... that the attacker won't even know that you're reading Wikipedia. Unlike (say) being found out that one uploaded something (no matter what) to WikiLeaks, the consequences of being discovered reading Wikipedia are probably zilch almost everywhere. But hey, if it floats your boat to hide that and are willing to put up with the massive slowdown (and not being able to edit) then... why not? It would probably help out some people in Iran or China, but it's tricky because while you can configure tor for a specific exit node, I doubt the WMF would allow a general purpose exit node (i.e. not just one that only allows traffic to Wikipedia.) So would be users would have to juggle exits nodes manually and repeatedly in that case, unless the tor software gets some special new features (like per URL exit nodes or something similar). Someone not using his real name (talk) 17:13, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
An adversary will always know if you are using Tor. What is much more difficult is knowing what the person did while using Tor. People in China cannot use Tor; it is generally agreed that it does not work there as the telcos have found how to block it.[33] A Wikipedia Tor node would not be much safer than the existing Tor/HTTPS setup used correctly.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 04:03, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

actually, it is not true that "An adversary will always know if you are using Tor", nor is it true that "People in China cannot use Tor". Please see https://www.novainfosec.com/2013/05/07/free-tor-bridges-available-in-amazon-ec2/ for details about Tor bridges (computers that act as hidden gateways to Tor). --Guy Macon (talk) 12:18, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Here is another reason to run our own TOR exit node: http://cryptome.org/2013/08/tor-users-routed.pdf says "Onion routing is vulnerable to an adversary who can monitor a user’s traffic as it enters and leaves the anonymity network; correlating that traffic using traffic analysis links the observed sender and receiver of the communication." Running our own TOR exit node prevents the adversary from monitor the user’s traffic as it leaves the anonymity network. --Guy Macon (talk) 13:46, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

The standard version of Tor may be detected by the Chinese authorities using deep packet inspection. Foreign visitors to China have reported difficulty in accessing Tor. Personally, I would steer clear of operating a Tor exit node from a home IP address, in line with the advice given by the Tor Project. A relay or bridge is safer. Bad exit nodes are a known problem for Tor, but the circuits switch every ten minutes or so to lessen this problem. An average visit, e.g. me looking up the Tiananmen Square protests of 1989 on the English language Wikipedia, would be hard to detect. That is what Tor is for; revealing personal data via a Tor exit node is not recommended.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 14:08, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

It is a typical arms race; as soon as the Chinese authorities gain the ability to detect Tor, Tor starts working on getting better at imitating Skype, Bittorrent, etc. As soon as Tor gets better at hiding, the Chinese start working on better detection methods, and the next round starts.

That being said, it is unlikely that the Chinese authorities can monitor the output of an exit node in the US, The above scenario involves a US user with the NSA monitoring the entrance and exit nodes.

Of course if the Beijing Sigint Intelligence[34] asked the NSA to share the results of their monitoring of US ISPs, the likely answer would be "what information do you have that you would be willing to trade?" Give the NSA the chance to stop a major terrorist attack on the US at the cost of outing a few Chinese dissidents, and they would no doubt jump at the chance. And it's hard to say that they would be wrong. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:47, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

What I don't get is, where did our faith go? What ever happened to "watering the tree of liberty"? Even in the month of September 2001, flying was still as safe as driving.^[35] We didn't have to surrender to a few shocking videos, abandon civil liberties, turn into aggressive imperialists, grope and fingerprint tourists, devastate populations, condone torture, and set up a monstrous surveillance state out of fear that it would happen again. All we really had to do was say a few prayers for the dead and go on with our lives, and we wouldn't have to be complicit in anything. Wnt (talk) 22:55, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Your message and email

Hello Jimmy,

I just saw your message at my talk page and sent you an email. Can you please, when you have a minute, reply at it. Just in case, if there are 2 emails and you are wondering which one, the first one was sent before seeing your message at my talk page and it's smaller than the second one. Thank you very much in advance. Miss Bono^{[hello, hello!]} 20:43, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Jimmy, thanks for the reply. I sent an email as response about five minutes ago or something. Best Miss Bono^{[hello, hello!]} 23:53, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

A suggestion for Executive Director of the WMF: Mike Godwin

Jimmy, with great respect to departing Sue Gardner, seeing as the search for her replacement as the WMF's Executive Director has been ongoing for nearly a year please allow me to put forward a name familiar to many Wikipedians and internet users: Mike Godwin. Sue is going to be hard to follow, and his personable and congenial nature aside, I submit that his qualifications are overwhelming for the post, not the least of which include his efforts regarding SOPA, and his work before and after his fine three years here as General counsel. At a time when internet freedom and security is increasingly under attack, his extensive knowledge and experience is unquestioned, and I am sure I am not alone in the Wikipedia community in my certainty that he would do an outstanding job as we face the challenges ahead. In short: Mike Godwin is a perfect fit. Thanks in advance for your consideration. Jus da fax 22:02, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

As we do not have the personnel file on that person, it is not reasonable for us to suggest any specific choice for a sensitive position. Cheers. Collect (talk) 22:04, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Meh. Draft User:Newyorkbrad. Lawyer, respected, dedicated. He might not take the pay cut but is by far the best person that should have a paid position. He understands every single issue and it should be his job to decline. I can understand a decline but not an offer. --DHeyward (talk) 08:47, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

I don't suggest an editor replace Sue. Seriously no...please.--Mark Miller (talk) 08:57, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Collect's rationale may be among the sillier I've heard this week. --Calton | Talk 04:59, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Jimmy, it appears a few here could use a refresher on Mike Godwin's stands, in his own words. Timely material in light of related concerns here as well. Thanks again! Jusdafax 15:46, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
- Didn't the Dolan fiasco happen on his watch? Also, was that Godwin who threatened ArbCom when they removed some admin privileges from some guy who was using them to get revenge on someone he didn't like? Cla68 (talk) 22:44, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
  - ^{[citation needed]}. Or do you like spreading empty rumors? --Calton | Talk 04:59, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
I think Ilham Aliyev or Nursultan Nazarbayev would be good candidates since their governments have shown such effective governance over their respective language Wikipedias. The WMF apparently approves since they haven't done anything about it. Cla68 (talk) 23:04, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
- While I highly doubt the peanut gallery on Jimbo's talk bage will have any impact whatsowver, FWIW I'd also support Newyorkbrad. Tazerdadog (talk) 06:22, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
+1 for MGodwin. Thank you very much to Jusdafax for allowing us to reflect on his views in his own words, the speech is most fascinating material with respect to issues surrounding freedom of speech and censorship! — Cirt (talk) 01:44, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

You are most welcome! Mike Godwin is indeed a fine, amusing public speaker. Amazing to think that he has been working, writing, teaching and fighting for internet freedoms for nearly a quarter century, longer than a significant percentage of our editors have been able to type. Godwin literally wrote the book on this crucial topic. I contend that the WMF needs a high-profile internet legend at the helm; there are stormy times upon us. Jimmy, I take your silence as a good sign, and thanks for leaving this thread open. Jus da fax 02:43, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

I'd support at least asking Godwin. I'd also support Stephen Walling recusing himself from any part of the considerations. --Calton | Talk 04:59, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Just yesterday Bill Moyers mentioned Mike Godwin in glowing terms in the lead paragraph of Moyers' latest posting. This is further proof, if any was needed, of the high regard Godwin is held in across a broad spectrum. Conclusion: the Wikimedia Foundation would be fortunate to have him as Executive Director. Jus da fax 21:03, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

How to solve the Explicit Content Problem

So I saw this and well, I have stumbled upon one or two of these pages and I have come up with a slight solution. We just put a template at the top of each page saying "This page contains explicit content, user discretion is advised, etc." and it will alert people of what certain photos their eyes may see. It's a simple and easy solution that we are quite capable of accomplishing. ☞ Яǐɱ ^{(Chat with Meh)} ^{(See what I'm up to)} —Preceding undated comment added 19:00, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Perennial proposals - the very first one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.123.67.6 (talk) 19:30, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

See also WP:NOTCENSORED. Debates on which pages or images should get such a warning might well be toxic, and the mere presence of such a template will act as a form of censorship, whether we intend that or not. DES ^(talk) 22:48, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Okay then, um, it's just a warning template, is it really that shunned? I mean really, I've stumbled on explicit content about 6 times on WIkipedia and scarred every time, I think I and others should be warned before reading more into the article, just sayin. It doesn't really remove the photo, does it? ☞ Яǐɱ ^{(Chat with Meh)} ^{(See what I'm up to)} —Preceding undated comment added 03:04, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

You know what, forget I even asked, it looks like it's never going to change at this point. ☞ Яǐɱ ^{(Chat with Meh)} ^{(See what I'm up to)}

Well OK then, we'll forget that you asked, however since so many other keep bringing this up, it is unlikely anyone will forget that it is thorn in the side of this encyclopedia. One answer could be code that allows a pop up that is not actually on the page itself but appears as a disclaimer OVER articles and then allows you to decide to continue or direct you to a Disney article. I have seen his before..it is more than a possibility, but do we as a community agree it is even needed. Many here feel that such images should not be censored. While I agree on the face of that, it does this site little good to allow unfortunates who disapprove to fall onto these pages without warning.--Mark Miller (talk) 09:43, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

The problem seems to be one of public perception. We do have disclaimers, and one link to them appears in every page, but they're as good as invisible - people are still surprised when they find about the lack of guarantees and objectionable content. The link is buried at the footer section, with no indication that it contains information relevant to the general reader; and the "not censored" warning is double buried under a second link to the Content disclaimer.

Our readers would be much better informed of the nature of the site and could make informed choices if we had a link to the disclaimers in a more visible place. I'd put it in the main page, above the fold, so that readers at least have a chance to know that the Disclaimers exist. The Welcome to Wikipedia box with the motto seems the perfect place - it could say "4,436,549 articles in English - see our Disclaimers", with a link to a summary version of the disclaimers (written in "five pillars" style). Diego (talk) 10:15, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

It's worth noting that there is a general principle that article should follow that possibly objectionable content should only occur where you expect to find it. Thus, Penis is going to have nudity, since a reasonable person should expect as much, while Daisies shouldn't, because you wouldn't expected (e.g., a photo of a nude person holding a daisy would be inappropriate for daisies, although daisies in a vase would be appropriate, even though the only difference is the possibly objectionable extraneous material.). Wily D 11:40, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

A few things: oddly, I don't seem to stumble upon the types of articles that are subject to any form of "shocking" images. If I go to an article about Ford, I expect a picture of a Ford - or at least its logo. If I go to an article about Disneyland, I expect to find a picture of Disneyland - or at least its logo. If I was visit an article about penises, I would expect to find a picture of a penis (maybe that's why I don't go to that article?) Yes, I would be "shocked" to go to an article about Ford and find an image of an anus - and rightly so. What we really don't need, however, is a new slogan like "Wikipedia: come for the information, stay for the free porn" ES &L 12:05, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
Pretty much. I do recall an incident involving a vandal that I won't explain in detail so as not to give others ideas. But my experience is that if you are complaining about the existence of explicit content, it is almost always because you went looking for it. Reso lute 14:57, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I remember vandals putting up an image of a big black butt and vagina so it would appear, I think it was on every page? (if so there are some folks at WP:Draft who would like to learn that trick for more mundane reasons) And another one where the front page was replaced by an immense HTML table graphic of goatse. I understand we have to combat such vandalism in order to function at all, and yet... they helped to remind us that Wikipedia was an open site where anything should be possible. (This thread inspired me to look up and add a William-Adolphe Bouguereau painting to Daisy, but as luck would have it, it wasn't one of those wonderful paintings he made, just an adorable little girl) Wnt (talk) 18:10, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

@The Rim of the Sky: Can you actually give some examples of places you've "stumbled across explicit content which scarred you" in a place where you wouldn't expect to find explicit content, as I'm not aware of this being a problem? It's certainly a problem on Commons - see the innocuously named commons:Category:Deep knee bends for instance - but I've never come across it on Wikipedia itself. Mogism (talk) 12:43, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

@Mogism Well, it's usually redirect links. For example, like this: rose. The text says something but the link turns out to be different. One time I searched up old school to see if Wikipedia had an article (I forget why). It led me to a disambiguation page where one link was Old-Fasioned which led me to another disambiguation page. There then was the Old-Fashioned (Slang). I clicked it, not reading the sentence after it (Yes, my fault) and it led me to the page for handjob. I only saw it for 1 second but wow did it scare the life out of me. I don't even know why there is a page for handjob and I don't want to know, but we all know the defenition of explicit content. I even went to the human page and when scrolling down I found the completely nude anatomy which I was not expecting.

Some people find explicit content disturbing, but to defend that Wikipedia had said that there is always something disturbing that people find and it applies to few. Explicit content on the other hand is I find different. If a movie has explicit content, it is 18+, correct? It's basically nudity. Should we not give a warning towards Nudity? Nudity IS nudity, no matter what people think about it. I'm not saying to censor nudity, but to warn before continuing down the page. ☞ Яǐɱ ^{(Chat with Meh)} ^{(See what I'm up to)} —Preceding undated comment added 18:58, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Is there any place where this can be debated other then a talk page? It's sort of taking up space. ☞ Яǐɱ ^{(Chat with Meh)} ^{(See what I'm up to)} —Preceding undated comment added 19:01, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

You could try a village pump, which is a centralized discussion area. I can tell you ahead of time that you won't get anywhere by proposing we start throwing up explicit content banners. A more nuanced approach of opening a discussion about where the current disclaimers are located and whether there is a better for them might prove viable. Overall though, I doubt you will be satisfied with the response. Reso lute 19:05, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

"If a movie has explicit content, it is 18+, correct? It's basically nudity." A movie containing nudity certainly doesn't entail it being rated 18+ in the jurisdiction I'm in. And probably not in quite a few others either.

"Nudity IS nudity" - on this point you are correct. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 19:22, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Nudity alone does not make an image, video or film 18 plus. In fact a naked male behind is still considered a G rating in the states I beleive. Just saying.--Mark Miller (talk) 05:52, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Up got a PG rating because when the old man hits a constauction worker there's like a few drops of blood, so that claim is hard to believe. KonveyorBelt 17:10, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, well blood and butts are not the same thing. LOL! Seriously, the rear end of a male behind was and may still be considered a G rating while violence and bloodshed do garner a higher rating. But let me check for sure.--Mark Miller (talk) 07:23, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

G contains no nudity of any kind, however I believe this changed recently. I remember this being a discussion somewhere but, at the moment PG allows "Some nudity".--Mark Miller (talk) 07:29, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

They really do want to know everything

Squeaky Dolphin. It was pretty much a give that would snoop social media writes such as Tweets, but they seem to care about reads too, at least on Blogspot/Blogger. I'm pretty sure they keep track of who (real persons) write what on Wikipedia too, possibly reads too. Someone not using his real name (talk) 19:48, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

What are you telling us that we cynics didn't already suspect? KonveyorBelt 16:40, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Could someone please stop the manic attempts by the user Ruhrfisch to defame British Antarctic Explorer Robert Falcon Scott?

This seems resolved and anyway has nothing to do with me.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 21:29, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

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

Has about 27 sock puppets all over the world's Wikipedia and his sole purpose in life seems to be to damage this person posthumely over Wikipedia... ...and while he's on his "crusade" against Scott, he fills all articles about him with praises for his idol and "messiah" - Ernest Shackleton... Poor. Even simple.wikipedia isn't safe of his misdoings, proof and reference to be seen in its/his overall defaming tone, omitting important general information and only pointing out highly controversial and debunked material,right here: https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Falcon_Scott and here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Controversies_surrounding_Robert_Falcon_Scott, to point out 2 of some dozen cases. Additionally, his prime source of "information", a person called Roland Huntford, is described as the following by an author that is even critical himself in some respects of regarding Scott (Francis Spufford) "Huntford's assult on Scott was so extreme, it plainly toppled over into absurdity" (from Ranulph Fiennes' book "Captain Scott": http://books.google.de/books?id=YT3RVfmwhNcC&printsec=frontcover&dq=fiennes+scott&hl=de&sa=X&ei=ujHrUtvtNrCv7AaQv4CoBA&ved=0CD4Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=spufford&f=false--37.230.12.174 (talk) 05:14, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Scott died in 1912, so "defame" is a potentially misleading word here; it has a legal implication that is not relevant. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 06:03, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-L85tCtCp11o/Td7z1znenmI/AAAAAAAAABo/f7SLVUNZQa8/s1600/picard_facepalm.jpg--37.230.12.174 (talk) 06:17, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Jimbo (or someone else) could you please erase the above user's blatant attempt to disrupt a needed discussion and rebuke him in order to prevent any further attempts of guarding his protege... Meanwhile I'll explain to him to that defamation is an act of injustice for which it is completely irrevelant wether the affected person is alive or not. Furthermore, you're comparison to a legal implication is made out of extremely thin air, as the mentioned legal implications would be linked to a living person, not a dead one.--37.230.12.174 (talk) 06:25, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

If you'd avoid using words like "defame" or "defamation" in section titles of sections about long-dead people, you would find it easier to communicate your meaning.

Not sure why you think this Ruhrfisch person is my "protege" - have we ever interacted?

Do you have any proof for your claim that Ruhrfisch "Has about 27 sock puppets"? See WP:ASPERSIONS. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 06:39, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Again, please stop trying to disrupt a needed discussion about gross misdepictions that harm the overall reputation of Wikipedia. And, once again, the word defamation is not limited to living people, and pointing this out repeatedly is nothing more than a smokescreen. Concering any interaction with the mentioned user - sure you'd not interact on Wikipedia if you were his protege, so everyone could see. And yes, I have a lot of "hints" that Ruhrfisch has a lot of sock puppets, which I certainly won't give away so easily, especially being aware that Ruhrfisch is a specialist in covering his traces. Meanwhile, shouldn't you check the multiple links I gave to this point and report whether and why you think they contain the much needed "neutral points of views"?--37.230.12.174 (talk) 06:50, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

And I'm not interested in the person behind the user's attacks on Captain Scott over Wikipedia, it's all about false depictions and clear POV articles that are used to villainize a rghteous person, while there's not even more than 2 or 3 authors backing his position, a clear case of WP:NPOV "If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Wikipedia" (Jimmy Wales)--37.230.12.174 (talk) 09:56, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Ok, so a block-evading sock of an admittedly-banned user is running amok on Jimbo's page, showing either absolute disdain for Wikipedia's policies - or a gross misreading of them. I'm starting to understand why the community might have been forced to implement a ban. I'm all in favour of people who to edit, but at least show basic understanding of the 5 pillars to start ES &L 10:04, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Quite the opposite, Jimbo's page is pretty much the only place where the admin-darlings of the user Ruhrfisch do not immediately block me, without even caring to understand what I say... Also very one-sided to say I'd be running "amok". Ruhrfisch has been running amok on Robert Falcon Scott, on Wikipedias around the world and for 6 months, I have to cope with being ripped-off and cheated by this user and his friends (and sock puppets). But for someone who thinks Wikipedia is a perfect world where everyone who is blocked without any evidence is a villain, and no admins and trusted editors could do anything wrong being totally impeccable, this might be hard to understand...--37.230.12.174 (talk) 10:12, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

It is also yet another imprudent barefacedness to allege "the community might have been forced to implement a ban". a) there's no community whatsoever in the articles about antarctic explorers b) if a community is starting to built up, it is dead-sure to be grinded down be the user whose name I do not even want to mention anymore c) responsible for my block is one single admin, of whom it is not clear whether he's a sock puppet or just a friend of this user... same pattern of behaviour and, in his "reasoning" for blocking me, he praises the user for being a "saint"...any questions why he blocked me were - blocked.--37.230.12.174 (talk) 10:25, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

And if you (or any one else would have taken a look into the matter, he would have seen that WP's are mandatoring warnings before any kind of block, I wasn't warned a single time, made 25 purely constructive edits, yet I was banned straight away, that's the facts one can't talk over or circumvent. At the same time you accuse me of disdain for Wikipedia policies, while I was blocked indefinitely under complete ignorance of the requirements for a block.--37.230.12.174 (talk) 10:30, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry - you lost me at "mandatory warnings" - there is no such thing. For example, WP:DUCKs need no warning, nor do serious wP:BLP breakers ES &L 21:05, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

You say below that you're banned - could you please tell us which it is? Are you a blocked user who is evading that block, or are you a banned user evading a ban? There's a difference :-) You're making serious allegations about someone here, while policy is quite clear that you should raise such allegations with WP:ARBCOM - it's right in the WP:SPI policy. Severe allegations without a smidgeon of proof is a personal attack which is blockable in itself. If you disagree with the block, read WP:AAB and WP:GAB and appeal it properly, not via socks ES &L 10:30, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

1. I'm not a sock, anybody involved in the matter can see from me IP that I am the (unrighteously) banned user and anyone suspecting a sock can do so and feel fine about it, too;-)

2. ARBCOM is full of very good friends of this user and they have and will try to gag and muzzle any statements not praising their beloved "saint"

3. The user responsible has built up a network of admin friends that protect him, no matter what.

4. There's enough proves I delivered and if you would have cared, you would know. In one link, there's even a hand-made screenshot where an undo-button was removed in order to ommit the community to rectify a severe misdoing, but here it goes again: http://www.upload-pictures.de/bild.php/37124,verstossruhrfisch8KRMW.jpg (last edit at the bottom included a picture of a Scott monument Ruhrfisch desperately tried to ommit the community, but is now included in the article - per request by the community

5.Please answer my question how I could have been blocked WITHOUT ANY WARNING, INDEFINITELY, FOR REMOVING A SINGLE LINK TO A CLEAR POV ARTICLE THAT HAS NEVER REACHED ANY CONSENSUS to be included in such an important main article

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.230.12.174 (talk) 10:40, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps one could describe Scott as a self-righteous person, but why exactly are you so intent on defending the reputation of a pompous ass who got himself and his crew killed in Antarctica? From a glance at things you appear to be a group of one on this issue, and regardless of what logged-out user you are that should be some indication of what the consensus (both historical and Wikipedia-wise) is on the matter. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 17:49, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Cora Pearl

Others may find this interesting to look into. It seems that the fact that the book is fictional was discussed in the Sunday Times back when the book was originally published.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 22:52, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Alexandre Duval was clearly trying to pay for advocacy. EllenCT (talk) 09:41, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Free access to the sum of all human knowledge

"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)

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)

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

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

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

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)

"'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)

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)

"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)

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

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)

Wikipedia Illicit IRC logging

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, Mat ty.007 18:36, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

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)

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. Reso lute 21:32, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

Category:Slave owner is being reverted

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)

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)

(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. [36] 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)
- 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)
  - 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)

Manipulated / Distorted pictures

This seems resolved and seems not to involve me anyway.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 21:29, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

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

The afforementioned distortions of facts don't even back away from manipulating main pictures used in articles, here's one example: This photo http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Scottski.jpg , which is used in an important article as a main image, is available in much better and clear quality http://www.google.de/imgres?imgurl=http://www.gstatic.com/hostedimg/0b4efa8f5d200bae_large&imgrefurl=http://cburrell.wordpress.com/2011/02/12/robert-falcon-scott/&h=1280&w=821&sz=96&tbnid=mY0sKWUvpP51dM:&tbnh=98&tbnw=63&prev=/search%3Fq%3Drobert%2Bfalcon%2Bscott%26tbm%3Disch%26tbo%3Du&zoom=1&q=robert+falcon+scott&usg=__AqkCyW9frYbGV-1FK2tA915QzCw=&docid=vxr-wTr_HL5mmM&sa=X&ei=NDjrUtXcJqbT7AbA7oGgDA&ved=0CKUBEP4dMBA, all over the net, but -somehow-, the user Ruhrfisch managed to find (or pollute) a picture that is not only symptomatic for his overall approach in editing Wikipedia text about the photographed person, but a clear evidence he's not only completely unsuitable for the job, but lightyears away from a remotely neutral point of view.--37.230.12.174 (talk) 05:50, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

The link yields not a better image but "Error 404 - Not Found". Please double check. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:21, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Done, frankly, I did double-check and the pic worked before - and these things have happened before, but only when I am talking about the already mentioned user...--37.230.12.174 (talk) 06:32, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Oh for god's sake, register at Wikimedia commons and upload the better image over the bad one. This isn't a Wikipedia issue. It's a Commons issue. Take it over there please.--Mark Miller (talk) 07:17, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

The image is used at Wikipedia in a main article, so it is not only a Commons issue.--37.230.12.174 (talk) 07:26, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Nope. If you don't like the image being used here...all you can do is remove it. But...if someone adds it back, you are out of luck. Your complaint is that this is not the highest quality image. Oh boo ******* hoo. Wikipedia has no control over the content of Wikimedia...just ask Jimbo, he knows...as do many of us.--Mark Miller (talk) 08:01, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

In the land where Jimbo's name surname originates from, one would probably refer to your above comment as jabberwocky, or whatelse the welshmen call this... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.230.12.174 (talk) 08:25, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Another example, some other user posted this comment:

"It is suspicious that Ruhrfisch (a German name...) is trying to defend the problematic German site and discouraging us from discussing it here in English (and thus alerting a worldwide audience to the potential fraud...). Can Wikipedia step in and sack the German wiki administrators who are responsible? As far as I can make out from the German website, there is one main perpetrator calling himself "Jamiri", and one or two supporting sycophants. Taking out the main perpetrator would probably suffice as the first step, so Ruhrfisch should have nothing to fear, initially."

But somehow, this comment was foisted in a discussion between me and this Ruhrfisch, until I discovered in the version history that Ruhrfisch manipulated the position of the above comment in order to deceive the community and think there'd be only one user (me) questioning his misdoings... --37.230.12.174 (talk) 06:39, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Sorry that I can't give you a diff.link for this, but, another coincidence, the above comment was archived, i.e swept under the carpet - under the pretense of "disruptive editing" (together with a case of Ruhrfisch abusing his powers as an admin and deleting an undo button of an edit where he removed a picture of a Scott memorial image). And if this was not enough, he tried to foist yet another comment made by a completely different user on me (the first one in the following link), clearly to prejudice and set up any Wikipedia personnel against me and make them stop reading after the 1st comment, but as can be seen from the IP 76.250.61.95, it is clearly not me. My constructive efforts start at comment no.3 (after venting a little bit of frustration about German Wikipedia banning me for questioning the neutral point of view of the Scott article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Robert_Falcon_Scott/Archive_3 --37.230.12.174 (talk) 07:05, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

And to close the story, once Ruhrfisch realized that his are inferior to my arguments, he not only archived many of my comments, he also linked two extreme POV articles into the Scott article that never had any consensus by the community but where placed as a trap I stepped into, as I tried to remove them for their utter POV character.:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Falcon_Scott#Modern_reaction

Main article: Controversies surrounding Robert Falcon Scott

Further information: Comparison of the Amundsen and Scott Expeditions

Last step was him using this as a pretense to defame me as a "disruptive editor" - and here we go, I am banned as an editor since more than half a year...--37.230.12.174 (talk) 07:26, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

I would have to agree....you do seem to be a very disruptive editor.--Mark Miller (talk) 08:02, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

I admire the prolixity and magnitude of both your argumentation and the supporting evidence you give. I certainly do not need to remind you that, following Mr.Wales guidelines, any allegation without supporting evidence is considered a personal attack.

To close the matter, I would like to ask Mr.Wales to unblock me, for, as you can see from my contribution page, I have done nothing but constructive edits: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?limit=50&tagfilter=&title=Special%3AContributions&contribs=user&target=Commissioner+Gordon&namespace=0&tagfilter=&year=2014&month=-1 and I am far away from being a "disruptive editor" and wish nothing else but to contribute to improving Wikipedia's overall quality and rectify some shortcomings!--37.230.12.174 (talk) 08:12, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Then stop making accusations without supporting evidence. To me...that is very disruptive. I am allowed that opinion. Don't like it...don't complain about things out of the control of Wikipedia. You are disruptive in that you are in the wrong place with your complaint and unblock request. I stand by my opinion that you are a disruptive editor. Stop and you won't be.--Mark Miller (talk) 08:23, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

1. I gave supporting evidence and most important, quoting a famous whistleblower: "To tell the truth is not a crime". Fact is, the mentioned user made accusations without ANY supporting evidence, even manipulated talk pages to discredit me and foist other users comments on me (as I already gave evidence) and he is not even daring to show up here telling us anything. 3. You can see from my contribution page I have done 99% constructive edits - that's a fact that cannot be ignored.--37.230.12.174 (talk) 08:29, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

The image is replaced; and I'm happy to replace again if you/any one can upload a better free image to Commons. J e e 08:35, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Seemd like such a simple thing to do. Just remove it here and upload a better one there. Why this escaped the OP, I have no idea.--Mark Miller (talk) 07:19, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, very nice of you. Meanwhile, I have done a revised edition of https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Falcon_Scott, you may take a look if you like.--37.230.12.174 (talk) 09:29, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Wow...reading my comments here and I was such a jerk. I should seriously apologize for being so rude. Didn't realize how bad I came across. Sorry 37.230.12.174.--Mark Miller (talk) 01:59, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Love, like, indifferent, dislike, loathe

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)

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

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)

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)

Potentially controversial TFA nomination

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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. Reso lute 22:40, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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: 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)

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

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)

Here's a concept: terrible idea for the mainpage. See: WP:BLATANTLYOBVIOUSTROLL. Carrite (talk) 03:59, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
- 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)
  - 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)
    - 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)
      - 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)
        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)
        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)
        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)

Spamming and COI violations by a senior admin

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 [37] 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.

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

Highly inappropriate.--S Philbrick (Talk) 18:08, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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.

So as you see see

many different editors were questioning your editing habits during the years.
The COI and spamming policies were not so much different in 2005/2006 than they are now.
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)

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

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)

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

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Let me please refresh your memory:

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)

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)

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:

the editor has never added any links to Squirrel
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)

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 [38]. 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)

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)

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)

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)

Well, the diff you gate the first time around [39] 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)

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 [40], 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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? Them From Space 02:21, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

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)

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 his 76.126.141.41 (talk) 03:03, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

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)

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 [41] 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)

@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)

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)

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)

Not about said senior admin, but an eye opener

If you ever wondered why so many pop stars and TV shows have such well-maintained wiki pages, see the last part of [42] (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)

Freeeeeedom

**"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)

--Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Block_proposal

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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

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)

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)

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)

"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)

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)

"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)

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)

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

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:

Do you best to follow the letter and the spirit of all Wikipedia policies and guidelines, even if you disagree with them.
If you are warned about doing something and the warning was legitimate, stop doing it, apologize, and don't do it again.
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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

"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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Fleishman-Hillard needs Bright Line lecture

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

...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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

German user "Jamiri" breaching the boundaries of WP and ethics, once again manipulating and deleting comments and critic from other users

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)

German Wikipedia feeling the need to add emergency telephone numbers inside their vandalism report site

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)

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)

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)

A cheeseburger for you!

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

Members of WP's "inner-circle"

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Back to editing as an IP again, eh Kumioko? Reso lute 23:11, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

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)

Racism Articles

They same people who have deleted categories like "Slave-owner" Category:Slaveholders 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)

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

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

The discussion is not gone. It was and is at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 April 28#Category:Slaveholders. --Guy Macon (talk) 13:32, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

I am afraid I was unclear. I'm not that interested in the Category deletion debate - we discussed that recently and while there were some terrible comments there (quoted above), it's an old, dead and gone issue. The current claim is that the same users have been POV pushing on "all articles" connected to Trayvon Martin. That's a pretty bold claim and would require links to back it up.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 21:06, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

I think that if a member of the mainstream media (or, really, any member of civil society) were to trawl through the archives of Talk:Shooting of Trayvon Martin, the result would be intensely embarrassing and shameful for Wikipedia. Regardless of one's view of the legal aspects of the situation, the volume and intensity of not-so-subtly-racist venom directed at a deceased teenager and the concerted effort by a number of editors to posthumously vilify that teenager are as repulsive as anything I've encountered on this site. That said, I don't see the overlap with the deleted categories which the original poster alleges. MastCell ^Talk 20:27, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

If you have information, as you proclaim that you do, that specific editors have acted in a vile, racist manner, than I suggest you lay forth your evidence, with links. I see no links, other than to the talk page of the article. Personally, I consider using vague allegations, lacking names or evidence, to be the more cowardly course than to lay your cards on the table. I suggest that you either refrain from such claims or act in a forthright manner.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:11, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Since you mention it, one of the most egregious offenders "retired" when his behavior came under scrutiny in Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Race and politics. As for the others, I don't think it's worthwhile to navigate Wikipedia's drawn-out and dysfunctional "dispute resolution" processes to deal with a few racist trolls who are, after all, best off ignored or shunned. Thanks for the advice, though. I will endeavor to live up to the high standards of integrity and forthrightness that you set for us all. MastCell ^Talk 04:34, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

There were some cringe-worthy comments made from all sides on the Trayvon Martin talk page, not just one side, from what I observed. That was in addition to the edit warring on the article itself. Cla68 (talk) 04:44, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Quite so, which is why I object to the characterization. Such rewriting of history is very reminiscent of an editor with whom MastCell has been linked in the past, and I hate to see people keeping in bad company. MastCell, I take your words in the spirit in which they are offered, and in return hope you will make positive contributions to the encyclopedia.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:24, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Keeping bad company is one of the few pleasures left on Wikipedia, so you'll have to excuse my choice of associates. By the way, since you're obviously angry with me about something, it's probably healthier to drop the childish, passive-aggressive insinuations and just come out and say it. It will probably make you feel better, and it might even lessen the overall level of repressed hostility which permeates this project under the banner of WP:CIVILity. Anyway, this thread has now been derailed from its original topic into weird personal grudges, as is standard on Jimbo's talkpage, so I don't have much to add. MastCell ^Talk 21:42, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia made me do it

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

Planned mass disruption of Wikipedia

I strongly welcome such projects as described here. Half of the following discussion is so laden with sarcasm that I fear the real point is being lost. Happy to host a serious discussion but any serious discussion has to start with a recognition that Wikipedia has a problem with systemic bias caused by a lack of diversity of participation of various kinds, including a lack of people who know anything about feminist thought.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 20:20, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

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

Don't really know where to post this, but should we allow a fringe group's planned disruption, since their goal appears to be making sure Wikipedia reflects their political ideology? — Confession0791 ^talk 17:23, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

If you think that a "Wikipedia Edit-a-Thon on Art and Feminism" is "disruption" by a "fringe group"... please find another website to participate in, because we have enough problems with rampant sexism and systematic patriarchal bias here already without you worsening it with your particular regressive 2¢. — Scott • talk 17:29, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Ping: SarahStierch. Ross HillTalk to me! 17:31, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

I don't think you understand what "mass disruption" means, Confession0791. That said, "It's aesthetically very masculine in its design"? Really? I'd be very curious to know the intended context behind that statement. Reso lute 17:34, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Did you read the entire article? They plan to "write feminist thinking" into the articles. Not very objective, is it? Also, anything supported by "Bitch Magazine" is bound to be radical. — Confession0791 ^talk 17:46, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. I would argue that Wikipedia is one of the most neutral websites around when it comes to design- black text, blue links, white background. Ross HillTalk to me! 17:40, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Hysteria aside, we should just go on about the editing business as usual. Vandalism can be easily stopped, and NPOV problems can be discussed. KonveyorBelt 17:56, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Anyone interested in creating content to fill gaps should be welcomed. Of course, a close eye should be kept on any activities related to it in case there is POV-pushing. In fairness, the talk about "writing feminist thinking" into articles was from an event last year.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 18:09, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Am I the only person who thinks an invasion of militant women is quite funny? It will be even funnier if they start editing the many articles written by our resident females - I think I shall go and warn a few of them. Giano 18:17, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

I see little humor in dismissing people who write from a feminist point-of-view as "militant", honestly. Is this the Wikipedia or a Rush Limbaugh chatroom? Tarc (talk) 18:35, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

While I approve of them coming to liberate we poor downtrodden lady editors, they're not going to attract many men writing "feminist thinking into Wikipedia articles about technology." are they? I fear they'll have wasted journey and go home empty handed and disappointed. In their own interests, we should point them towards flower arranging, table setting and fashion, and suggest they leave technology to our rugged and rather handsome menfolk (like dear Mr Wales). It quite reminds me of when I was marching alongside Miss Pankhurst, mind you she never managed to find a husband either. The Lady Catherine de Burgh (talk) 18:42, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

I don't mean to be snide about this, but how would you know if there was a "mass disruption"? Seems that there is already a good volume of disruption and vandalism taking place all the time as it is. I don't see how any organized campaign could make itself heard over the background noise. Coretheapple (talk) 18:45, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

For the record, tracking this back from the goofy "Campus Reform" site listed, to "Bitch Magazine", to a better source, I finally reach Wikipedia:Meetup/ArtAndFeminism, which was held on February 1. If it caused any disruption, I hadn't noticed. Looks like these folks still have a lot of redlinks to work on, so let's hope for more "mass disruptions" sooner rather than later! Wnt (talk) 22:08, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Non-English redirects to English Wikipedia maintenance pages on English Wikipedia

I was wondering if you have an opinion on this issue? This came up in a discussion about the foreign-language redirect Spezial:Beobachtungsliste which is currently listed for deletion -- 70.50.148.248 (talk) 06:08, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

I can see the benefit, and at least one person is actively using it. I see no harm. So I would vote to keep.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 10:34, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Feminist takeover

Does this project have a discussion page anywhere? I came across the subject Grace Arents, a Richmond, Virginia heiress and philanthropist who established a convalescent home for the city's sick children and then what has become the Lewis Ginter Botanical Gardens. I've asked at WP:refund for the deleted article to be restored so it can be expanded. She's quite notable and is an interesting subject. Candleabracadabra (talk) 16:52, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Click again. It was a quickie; I'm on the run. I added one quick ref but I'm almost embarrassed to leave it like this; unfortunately I have to. Drmies (talk) 19:58, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
She's definitely notable I think. I've done some tidying up behind you, so hopefully Candleabracadabra can now expand the article. Eric Corbett 21:23, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

I appreciate it, Eric. In the meantime, I got the tag for my Prius, so we've all done at least one good thing today. Drmies (talk) 21:29, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks gentlemen. I was hoping our visitors would do it. I guess there isn't a page or on Wiki organization of their efforts? I'm always trying to get out of doing work. Have a great weekend. Thanks again. Candleabracadabra (talk) 21:37, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

User:Pubdog

This editor has been working through National Register of Historic Places properties for years. He recently completed those listed in Virginia. Pretty awesome! Candleabracadabra (talk) 16:52, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Pub is a great editor - one of my top 5 for sure. To give a better description, he has written articles on sites on the National Register of Historic Places to (almost) complete the lists in Maryland, Pennsylvania, West Virginia, New York, Delaware (?) and now Virginia. That must be well over 10,000 articles.

I'm guessing there are a few editors here scratching their heads on what your last 3 sections are doing here. Much of the time they come here to bitch about something. It's far from my place to say there might be a better place for this. Keep on truckin' Smallbones_(smalltalk) 18:04, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

I thought it would be nice to let Jimmy and anyone watching his page know about Pubdog's great work. Candleabracadabra (talk) 21:13, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

It was nice, and I shouldn't have mixed that in with the usual BS that goes on on this page (see e.g. 2 sections down). Sorry. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 23:54, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Mentioned at AE

At WP:AE#Arbitration enforcement action appeal by Momento I've briefly mentioned your editorial actions at Prem Rawat and brought up a discussion which occurred on your talkpage. Just a courtesy note. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 16:58, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

A day of kindness, fairness and understanding

Having spoken with Ed, we're collapsing this entire discussion.

This appalling discussion is over. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 06:31, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

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

Dear Mr. Wales,

some time ago you were notified about sad news, a passing of a young and bright Wikipedian. Let's call him John. The poster described John's Wikipedia's history, and it was impressive. I looked over his contributions and I could tell you he was a very, very nice and a very kind person.

What you were not told about, Mr. Wales, was that John committed suicide, and although there are newspaper articles about it on the NET, and although I am sure John who made his habit of questioning authorities very public would not have minded me using his real name, I would protect his privacy and will neither use his real name nor provide any links to it.

Quite a few Wikipedians visited John's talk page and said nice words about him ... after his death.

You, Mr. Wales, expressed sadness you have never met him... after his death.

A few Wikipedians mentioned the Wikipedia Community, and one of them wrote that John meant a lot to the Wikipedia community, the community of real people.. Of course John did get his fair share of wikilove messages, but were these cute kittens really what he needed?

Where was the Wikipedia community of "real people", when John added this template, (should I call it a cry for help) to his talk page? In the end that template reads in bold: Thank you for your assistance and understanding. " Assistance and understanding"? Is that a right request to address to the Wikipedia community of "real people"? John had less than six months to live.

Where was the Wikipedia community of "real people", when John hidden the template with a short notice: Still current, but seemingly ineffective at stemming others' aggression "ineffective at stemming others' aggression" ... As I mentioned above John was a very nice, very helpful and very generous person, non combative at all, and still he experienced others' aggression even after he asked for assistance and understanding... John had less than four months to live.

Once John's user page was vandalized. Nobody removed the vandalism for a whole week! John ended up doing this himself... at the day of his death...

Are you still sad you have never met John, Mr. Wales? I know I am, but not because John was a great Wikipedian. I am sad I have not met John because he was a person who needed assistance and understanding, and maybe if I knew him, I would have been able to comfort him.

Mr. Wales, John cannot be brought back, but his Wikipedia experience could and should help others. I am sure it is what John would have wanted. The Wikipedia community is not healthy.

So don't you think that maybe once in a while instead of "the day we fight back" the Wikipedia community of "real people" could use a day of kindness, fairness and understanding? 50.150.101.226 (talk) 02:04, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

"John" did excellent work and many of us interacted with him when we had the chance. The amount of vandalism on his page is horrible and most of it seems to still be there (in the history), including one image link that must...I repeat must be scrubbed from the history.--Mark Miller (talk) 02:33, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

As someone who corresponded with "John" off-wiki numerous times on numerous matters, though I was never "close" with him per se, I had no idea his health issues would come to what they did. I probably IM-ed him a month before the tragedy, and nothing seemed to deviate from the personality he exuded on Wikipedia. A tragic loss, and IP-friend hits it on the head by suggesting a day, though I would assert permanently we should be, "kindness, fairness and understanding". Go Phightins! 02:47, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Like--Mark Miller (talk) 02:57, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

I just want to say, that the death alone was pretty difficult for me to handle at the time but please understand that we cannot know or see everything. I will say this much, had I known "john" was having difficulties, I would have attempted peer counseling with them. I have done so before and would have reached out to them, but it is hard to see every update a user makes unless one checks the watch list almost every second. Yes...lets use this trajedy to improve how we treat each other. We are all real people. We are not just a username or page.--Mark Miller (talk) 03:09, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict × 2) Having interacted with him on many occasions, I am of the same mind as Go Phightins. When I saw him post that banner on his talk, I never thought it would escalate to the point of suicide. Although a dedicated day of kindness and acceptance would do much to increase awareness of these issues, mental health is a problem we need to fix as a community in our day to day interactions. Allowing personal attacks to happen without anyone intervening is unacceptable. We need to take signs of poor mental health more seriously- especially when it is as obvious as a banner on someone's talk page. If there is anything good to come out of his tragedy, it is that we can take this as a chance to grow as a community. Ross HillTalk to me! 03:15, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

It saddens me to read this, as I heard about this death, read about the person and his contributions, and wondered at the time if suicide might possibly have been the cause. Suicide has taken three of my relatives over the years, and there is a lot of questioning, second guessing and severe grief for those closest to the victims. The lesson we should take away from this and thousands of other such sad stories is that every single day ought to be "a day of kindness, fairness and understanding". Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:33, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

When did WP become a psychiatric hospice? People commit suicide every day, my own father did, but the reasons aren't always what you think they are. If you have mental health problems go see a doctor, don't plaster a template on your talk page. Eric Corbett 04:58, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Many of us believe that kindness should be pursued in every most every realm of human interaction, Eric. Some of us disagree. It is not mandatory: it is simply a friendly suggestion. By the way, I am very sorry to hear about your father's death. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:08, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

I wasn't at all sorry, he had it coming to him after he murdered my step-mother, but I guess we're all different. I don't recall plastering templates on my talk page when the events unfolded, or expecting any social support from WP even if I had, and neither should anyone else. Eric Corbett 05:13, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Eric....what the fuck dude?--Mark Miller (talk) 05:26, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

I was simply making the point that we all have problems, but we choose to deal with them in different ways. Putting a template on my talk page really wouldn't make it into my list of the top one million ideas. Eric Corbett 05:42, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

This thread is about the recent and incredibly unfortunate suicide of someone who has contributed a tremendous amount to Wikipedia. Please keep comments on topic and respectful. The user in question's family could very well be reading this thread, and when they do, I don't want them to see grave-dancing style comments. Please be respectful in your comments, or don't make them at all. I'm not saying that this is Wikipedia's fault, but we collectively have a human obligation to be respectful in this situation. I will be monitoring this thread for violations of Wikipedia policies, including those that deal with the recently deceased, and will be acting with a heavy degree of WP:IAR. I will be actioning any exceptionally offensive comments in the rest of this thread, regardless of who they originate from. Kevin Gorman (talk) 05:30, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Material not relevant to this discussion.

This topic is actually a disgrace, suggesting as it does that WP has a responsibility for the mental welfare of its editors. Bear in mind it doesn't even accept responsibility for the content of its articles. Eric Corbett 05:32, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

I don't agree with the overall tone of the original post, but now you're just calling the kettle black here Eric. Seriously...you may wish to stop now while you are ahead. Not that you will....but you might want to.--Mark Miller (talk) 05:41, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
Strangely enough I don't care for your tone either. Eric Corbett 05:44, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
Malleus, if you have problems with the tone of the original post, discuss them elsewhere, not here. I agree with you that the original post in this thread is not ideal. In this situation, we have an obligation to exercise some degree of human decency, and even if it lands me at ANI or arbcom, I'll be redacting inappropriate comments from here on out and blocking for the duration of the discussion if they are restored. Kevin Gorman (talk) 05:45, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
Try reading again. I never mentioned the tone of the original post, that would be Mark Miller, but block away if you must. Eric Corbett 05:48, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes, and of course it isn't strange at all that I could care less what you think of my tone Eric. But I apologize for continuing your comments into an actual discussion here.--Mark Miller (talk) 05:53, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Please keep your posts on topic, Eric. If you post any further WP:BLP/WP:BDP violating material, I will place you under a Arbcom BLP ban for the duration of this discussion (which can only be overturned by a consensus at AE.) And to be clear when I refer to your problematic posts, I mean your initial ones in this thread. Kevin Gorman (talk) 05:55, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

A certain sad irony to all this. Certainly a case for what Wikipedia is not. Saffron Blaze (talk) 06:17, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

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

The Day We Fight Back

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)

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 able to identify a highly-relevant FA or FL that has not previously been at TFA/TFL. notable re-runs: FA Freedom for the Thought We Hate and FL Bibliography of George Orwell
At least 8 highly-relevant new articles of sufficient size have been nominated at WP:DYKN, but are not yet reviewed and scheduled. USA Freedom Act & FISA Improvements Act, Klayman v. Obama & ACLU v. Clapper, Mass surveillance in East Germany & Mass surveillance in North Korea, Amash-Conyers Amendment & Arizona Fourth Amendment Protection Act

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)

That's "semi-relevant" in the sense of "not at all relevant". Afroyim v. Rusk was said to be relevant because it was said to be about the Fifth Amendment, but actually it has nothing to do with the Fifth Amendment (you will hunt in vain in the article for anything about the Fifth Amendment). It's a citizenship case, not a free speech or a surveillance case. Bencherlite ^Talk 15:35, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Well, 14th amendment or 4th amendment, Afroyim v. Rusk is a landmark human rights case-- it's relevant, but only semi. I'd favor a free speech FA like Freedom for the Thought We Hate, even it if it is a re-run. But that's a decision for higher authorities than me. --HectorMoffet (talk) 16:30, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

So the argument about "relevance" has become simply this: "The Day We Fight Back is about one aspect of human rights - this is a TFA about some other aspect of human rights - therefore it is relevant". I disagree, but there's little point in going on about it because it's not running on 11th Feb anyway (it got no support for that when nominated at TFAR). Nor have you found any support for the notion of re-running any TFA, least of all Freedom for the Thought That We Hate, which was TFA just over 4 months ago (and not even from the principal author of that article). Bencherlite ^Talk 17:42, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

I'd support Freedom for the Thought That We Hate on that date, I was the principal author, but yes it did already run recently. So I'll respectfully defer to the wise judgment of Bencherlite about that. Cheers, — Cirt (talk) 18:48, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

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

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

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)

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)

The RFC on whether this should happen never started.

Actually, it did, but HectorMoffet (who'd been one of the idea's main advocates) removed it almost immediately. —David Levy 16:49, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Indeed. It's almost as if those wanting to use the main page for political advocacy on 11th Feb knew that any such proposal would resoundingly fail if brought to general attention and decided that discretion would be the better part of valour. It's obviously far too late to do anything now, after so much time has been wasted by a handful of supporters in not coming to a decision about what to propose (either in general or in specifics) or how to propose it. Bencherlite ^Talk 17:42, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Jimbo...a last minute effort was made by User:Jehochman, myself and others to pin down a potential featured article but we don't have any that are theme related or that could have been brought up to that level in a timely manner. Though some theme related articles may very well be quite excellent, it still takes at least 30 days to push an article through to featured level. What other ideas did you have in mind?--MONGO 18:42, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Fuck (film) is eligible (there's currently a discussion about its suitability, as you probably know). That's about censorship, not about surveillance, so maybe misses the point by too far (it would certainly get some attention though). --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:04, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, that would be a confusing message to the point of being a non-message. Ok so, we don't have ANY past featured articles that are on this general theme? Is there something we could intensively fast-track by bringing a lot of attention to it?--Jimbo Wales (talk) 21:51, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Dunno, I'm warming up to the idea of that article on the mainpage... How about three features on top of one another: Fuck / Ewe / National Security Agency??? Humor-impaired persons: this is a joke. Carrite (talk) 02:42, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution is a GA that has spent about a week at FAC. IFF it's good to go or requires only cosmetic polishing, perhaps extensive effort could get it to FA in time. But if it needs restructuring, the "lack of stability" alone would prohibit us from calling it a FA within the next few days. --HectorMoffet (talk) 03:27, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Unfortunately, Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution has issues related to close-paraphrasing. Well, I found one instance, which might or might not indicate there could be others in the article. It will need to be checked throughout for this. I left a note about it at the FAC. — Cirt (talk) 03:29, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

FYI, I've asked Moonriddengirl for help with what to do about the article Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution. — Cirt (talk) 03:35, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Comment: These are WP:GAs, not WP:FAs yet, but some other quality articles I've contributed about freedom of speech include: Beyond the First Amendment, Free Speech, "The People's Darling Privilege", and Freedom of Expression. Of those, probably Freedom of Expression would be the most relevant. I suppose I could nominate it to FAC right now, but I don't think that would be nearly enough time for that particular process to run its course. Unless I guess perhaps some experienced editors could help me out, but even so, there's already an article scheduled for February 11, 2014, and we really don't have much time. Thoughts? — Cirt (talk) 03:40, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

While anything is possible and many of those articles are excellent we are very time limited here and I prefer to have any article that gets the FA star be a full FA and not one that has had a rushed vetting process just so it can be mainpaged. The Fourth Admendment article you have commented on could be fast tracked though I suppose, but it's a lengthy piece and not an absolutely relevant one.--MONGO 12:22, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Anything about privacy or spying? First-amendment issues are pretty marginal to the mass spying controversy, except maybe for non-disclosure clauses of national security letters. Someone not using his real name (talk) 18:25, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Orlady's Prejudgment of consensus and scheduling against procedure

Orlady has attempted to schedule a Feb 11 (or later) nomination for Feb 6, despite clear flagging that the nomination was to be held for Feb 11 or later, as per our usual practice (see the Olympics). Orlady justified their action by pre-judging the outcome of our on-going discussion here, saying "we are not going to treat 11 February as a special occasion on the topic of mass survaillance. Your hook is currently scheduled to run on 6 February". diff. This is behavior that needs addressing. --HectorMoffet (talk) 06:23, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Following a lengthy discussion at Wikipedia talk:Did you know, there is no consensus to treat "The Day We Fight Back" as a special occasion, which is not a "usual practice" (or even one with precedent) in the context of protests.

I don't know why you believe that a discussion on Jimbo's talk page overrides the DYK discussion or regard this as a suitable forum in which to report a perceived infraction.

I see that you removed the DYK item from the set. And for good measure, you moved the article back to the draft namespace and inserted a bogus tag "to keep [it] off mainpage for a few days". And you're accusing someone else of attempting an "end-run around consensus"?

These actions seem particularity bizarre when one considers that Orlady is the editor who proposed that February 11 be treated as a special occasion (in the discussion that failed to achieve consensus) and you're the editor who terminated an already-belated RfC on whether to participate in the protest. —David Levy 07:10, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Yep-- there's an on-going discussion, and I'm deeply offended that any one editor would prejudge the outcome. I don't claim a consensus exists for a special day on Feb 11. What's unacceptable is a tiny retinue of editors, editors I can count on one hand, who are just an isolated clique, making broad declarations pre-judging site-wide consensus and flouting WP:OWN? Those make me see red. --HectorMoffet (talk) 07:24, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Yep-- there's an on-going discussion,

On Jimbo's talk page. Not to be confused with the lengthy DYK discussion that's already concluded or the RfC that you unilaterally removed.

and I'm deeply offended that any one editor would prejudge the outcome.

Orlady explicitly cited discussion at WT:DYK. Again, I don't know why you believe that a discussion on Jimbo's talk page overrides that.

I don't claim a consensus exists for a special day on Feb 11.

Then why do you feel entitled to flag nominations to be held until that date or later (which isn't a normal part of the process)?

What's unacceptable is a tiny retinue of editors, editors I can count on one hand, who are just an isolated clique,

An isolated clique? Like the editors who watch Jimbo's talk page? (I'm including myself, of course.)

making broad declarations pre-judging site-wide consensus

Site-wide consensus? Do you understand what a user talk page is? I'm not sure, as you referred to "high level discussions" occurring here.

and flouting WP:OWN?

You just moved an article back to the draft namespace and inserted a bogus tag "to keep [it] off mainpage for a few days" (after yanking its hook from DYK). And you're accusing others of "flouting WP:OWN?"?

Those make me see red.

I can tell. You don't normally behave like this.

Incidentally, as you didn't bother to inform Orlady of this report, I've done so. —David Levy 07:56, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Moving articles into the draft namespace is inappropriate, so I have reverted that change. As it stands, the article will never appear at DYK because the nomination has been closed as "promoted" and the hook (but not the credits) has been removed from the prep area, so no-one at DYK will know that the hook has not in fact run. I just wish that instead of complaining that people are prejudging site-wide consensus, HectorMoffet would note that (a) consensus at WT:DYK is against this; (b) the latest discussion at the Village Pump is against any action on 11th Feb; (c) he himself marked WP:Surveillance awareness day as {{historical}} and {{rejected}} precisely because there was no consensus for doing anything to mark it; (d) that was over a week ago and nobody has done anything to try and demonstrate that there is in fact a site-wide consensus for action on 11th Feb! Bencherlite ^Talk 08:19, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

As with the "lengthy discussion", the Surveillance Awareness Day proposal had been for an extraordinary (like, extraordinarily bad) home page with all the usual rules thrown out the window. That does not mean that material about this day which passes the usual DYK or FA rules (including editor requests to hold hooks) should be rejected. Wnt (talk) 11:38, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

As noted below, you evidently forgot about (and subsequently overlooked) part of the DYK discussion. You also seem to have forgotten about the discussion of less extreme ideas at Wikipedia talk:Surveillance awareness day.

Your impression that DYK hooks are routinely held for any day of the nominator's choosing (including that of an organized protest) is erroneous. —David Levy 15:21, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

An isolated clique? Like the editors who watch Jimbo's talk page? (I'm including myself, of course.)

Yes Agreed! Everyone will know what we do on Feb 11-- so almost everyone should know what we plan to do by Feb 10 (at the latest). This is a decision for multiple dozens or hundreds of editors, or more! -- it's not a decision for 3-5 editors, wherever they congregate.. --HectorMoffet (talk) 08:45, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Then why did you terminate the RfC and hang your hat on a discussion occurring on Jimbo's talk page? —David Levy 15:21, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

To quote from the masterpiece that is Game of Thrones
Spice King: "The discussion is over Xaro Xhoan Daxos. The Thirteen have spoken."
Xaro: "I am one of the Thirteen and I am still speaking. "
Jimbo may not have the vocal resonance of Xaro, but you get my point. A consensus for a special day has not been reached and a consensus may never be reached. Or maybe a consensus will be reached after all. But pre-judgements of what consensus will bring unfortunately reek of the foul stink of WP:OWN. --HectorMoffet (talk) 08:34, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

I see very little debate at T:TDYK. (Note that the "lengthy discussion" linked above rejected a different proposal to re-run old DYKs, which I also opposed, but is not a blanket ban on this topic!) A few editors at [43] seem to have decided that some events deserve to have timed hooks held for them, but this one doesn't -- I guess that funneling copyright royalties into the corrupt morass that is the IOC is just so plainly a worthy cause that Wikipedia has to accommodate it, but that isn't a privilege allowed to editors covering anything else. Wnt (talk) 11:05, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Note that the "lengthy discussion" linked above rejected a different proposal to re-run old DYKs, which I also opposed, but is not a blanket ban on this topic!

One of the subsections (introduced by Orlady, as noted above) is titled "Proposal: Treat this like a 'special occasion'". You supported said proposal, so it's curious that you've now overlooked it. Discussion of the broader idea to tie DYK into the February 11 protest occurred throughout the parent section.

A few editors at [44] seem to have decided that some events deserve to have timed hooks held for them, but this one doesn't -- I guess that funneling copyright royalties into the corrupt morass that is the IOC is just so plainly a worthy cause that Wikipedia has to accommodate it, but that isn't a privilege allowed to editors covering anything else.

DYK's purpose isn't to support "worthy causes". It's to highlight/encourage the encyclopedia's expansion. Occasionally, hooks' appearances are purposely scheduled to coincide with well established, widely recognized events (such as holidays and major competitions). Again, DYK has never made special arrangements for a protest (and there isn't consensus to start now). —David Levy 15:21, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Supporters of this have had weeks to discuss and get aproval from the community at large. They have no one to blame but themselves that they have never attempted to have a centralized discussion on the basic question "Is this something Wikipedia should actively participate in." To late to push something through and when casting blame look in the mirror first.--Cube lurker (talk) 15:15, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

The "Day we fight back" or "Surveillance Awareness Day" proposal was discussed last month at WT:DYK: archive of WT:DYK discussion. In the initial discussion, opinion was almost entirely against the ideas being proposed. As noted here, I made an alternative proposal, suggesting that the occasion could be treated according to DYK's standard protocols for special occasions (such as holidays, anniversaries, or events like the Olympics). My proposal received some support, but there were also some strong expressions of opposition. The discussion died out after 23 January, and got archived (that's why User:Wnt saw little debate at DYK). Since then, some interesting surveillance-related hook nominations were submitted at T:TDYK, and they deserve to get the 8 hours of main page exposure that DYK provides. The mechanics of managing special-occasion requests at DYK can be problematic (keeping up with the need to upload a new nicely balanced set of 7 hooks every 8 hours can be chaotic enough, without also worrying about overlooking a hook for some saint's day or obscure national holiday that's been waiting for a particular date). However, I would support holding the approved hooks for 11 February if I were convinced that 11 February was a "real" special occasion to take note of. I don't spend my life on Internet message boards and I don't frequent this page (and I have no knowledge of Game of Thrones), so my understanding of reality may not coincide with yours, but I've not seen evidence elsewhere that the day is going to be very widely recognized. Furthermore, recent postings on WT:DYK had stated that the Surveillance Awareness Day proposal had failed and those hooks need not be held for 11 February, and nobody had disagreed (discussion as it existed when I moved User:HectorMoffet's East German surveillance hook into the prep area, as well as several hours later when I responded to his request that I put the hook on hold). It's interesting that HectorMoffet did not take my advice to take his request to WT:DYK, but instead took it upon himself to pull "his" hook from the prep area (gumming up some of the DYK mechanics in the process), removed "his" article from article space, and came here to complain about me. As I see it, there was merit in the idea of emphasizing surveillance awareness on 11 February, but the idea was doomed by the POV-pushing of its proponents, coupled with an apparent attitude (expressed through those actions and others) that the idea should be exempt from the normal protocols of Wikipedia and the Wikipedia community. --Orlady (talk) 15:27, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

I agree that some bad proposals were made, and moving a page back to Draft: space is the process I would like to see substituted for deletions, and after such a reform I would view such a move as the sort of thing to oppose vehemently at AfD. That said, we still have the fundamental philosophical problem of "very widely recognized" by who? It is a gateway to POV. For example, right now there is a holding area for "22 February (Investiture of new cardinals appointed by Pope Francis)". Now that's fair enough, it's widely recognized, can't argue that. But does everyone in the world agree the appointment of a new cardinal in Rome is more notable than a political event supported by 100 organizations advocating an end to global surveillance? How do you evaluate that? Or even putting this event aside for a moment -- what are you going to decide when the Mormons are appointing their church functionaries, the Unitarians, the UCC, etc.? Does Wikipedia, like Russia, take an official view of what is a Recognized World Religion and what isn't? I say the only possible answer there that is not very, very offensive is to say no, we don't. We leave the POV to the choice of every individual editors, each and every one of which is free to propose a DYK and decide on an individual basis whether it is worth scheduling it for a day in the near future or not. There simply is no other acceptable solution. Wnt (talk) 16:26, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Note: The article that HectorMoffet moved to draft space was not a substandard article that might otherwise have been a candidate for deletion. Rather, it was a perfectly good article, and it had been approved for inclusion in DYK on the main page. His moving it to draft space was an assertion of article ownership -- in effect, saying "if Wikipedia won't feature my work on the main page they way I want it to be featured, I am not going to let Wikipedia have the benefit of my work." That's not the way this place works. --Orlady (talk) 17:20, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

That said, we still have the fundamental philosophical problem of "very widely recognized" by who?

Please see Wikipedia:Verifiability.

It is a gateway to POV.

Permitting editors to flood the main page with material intended to support political causes would be such a gateway.

But does everyone in the world agree the appointment of a new cardinal in Rome is more notable than a political event supported by 100 organizations advocating an end to global surveillance?

No, of course not. And The Day We Fight Back is a notable subject with an article here. But it isn't an event with established cultural significance. It's a planned protest. As a community, we don't purposely schedule main page content (or otherwise modify encyclopedic material) to engage in advocacy. —David Levy 17:02, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Except the Olympics, and the Vatican, and other organizations you support, that is. Please note that there is no WP:Established cultural significance, nor any reason why someone would pick that particular criterion. Also note as I've said before that WP:Advocacy speaks of politics and sports in the same breath - if it is wrong to "advocate" TDWFB by creating DYKs about it, then it is wrong to do it for the Olympics. Wnt (talk) 17:54, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry that you don't understand the difference between writing about a widely recognized event and participating in an organized political protest. —David Levy 18:13, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Sure I know the difference. It's the same reason why an article about a neighborhood in the U.S. goes without a second thought, while an article about a modest-sized city in Pakistan gets deleted with a few pejorative comments about it being a "wide place in the road", without regard to population. The difference is money. We're all supposed to whore after money night and day; it gives dignity and meaning to employment, and therefore to life; it distinguishes the noble and the celebrity from the nobody. And of course, the NSA is money (with all that insider stock information, how can't it be?) and it is dangerous to be on the outs with money. But on Wikipedia, we don't actually have to do that - we can respect a partisan organization equally whether it is housed in a cathedral or a hastily built website, and feel free to offer research support to all without prejudice. And when prejudice is unavoidable, we could (in utter violation of every de facto precept and tenet of capitalism) leave the power in the hands of those doing the work, rather than saying "thank you for your contributions, but when it comes to showing what our site supports (like not boycotting the Olympics while boycotting anti-NSA protest) your efforts are now the property of the Few In Charge". And I think that democratic, individualist response is exactly what we can and should do. Wnt (talk) 19:16, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Sure I know the difference. It's the same reason why an article about a neighborhood in the U.S. goes without a second thought, while an article about a modest-sized city in Pakistan gets deleted with a few pejorative comments about it being a "wide place in the road", without regard to population.

Please provide links to the relevant discussion(s). If your description is accurate, this sounds like a problem in need of attention.

The difference is money. We're all supposed to whore after money night and day; it gives dignity and meaning to employment, and therefore to life; it distinguishes the noble and the celebrity from the nobody. And of course, the NSA is money (with all that insider stock information, how can't it be?) and it is dangerous to be on the outs with money.

I really am trying to understand the above comments' relevance, but I'm not seeing it.

But on Wikipedia, we don't actually have to do that - we can respect a partisan organization equally whether it is housed in a cathedral or a hastily built website, and feel free to offer research support to all without prejudice.

And we have an article about "The Day We Fight Back", which received a DYK hook.

And when prejudice is unavoidable,

It's much easier for Wikipedia to avoid participating in an organized political protest than it is for us to take part.

we could (in utter violation of every de facto precept and tenet of capitalism) leave the power in the hands of those doing the work, rather than saying "thank you for your contributions, but when it comes to showing what our site supports (like not boycotting the Olympics while boycotting anti-NSA protest) your efforts are now the property of the Few In Charge".

Once again, this comes down to you not recognizing the difference between encyclopedic coverage and activism.

Running main page items about the Olympics during the Olympics is a means of delivering timely content, not "showing what our site supports".

Setting aside the matter of cultural significance, if it were feasible to write multiple articles about "The Day We Fight Back" and create a DYK hook for each (to run on the day of the event), that would be a materially different situation. What we actually have is an attempt to flood DYK with articles whose subjects merely relate to the political cause behind the event — for the express purpose of supporting the protest and influencing its outcome. —David Levy 21:49, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Those Olympics related articles aren't about the present competition either. And when a person is interested in finding out and telling the honest truth, there is no difference between encyclopedic coverage and activism. Wikipedia started as an activist cause and, despite unjustifiable obstacles, remains one, provided that we can avoid getting bogged down in frustration and focus simply on what we can do. Obstructionism is limitless, but so is our creativity. Wnt (talk) 23:03, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Those Olympics related articles aren't about the present competition either.

Indeed. Please ask yourself why it's possible to run DYK hooks about past Olympic events but not past "The Day We Fight Back" events.

And when a person is interested in finding out and telling the honest truth, there is no difference between encyclopedic coverage and activism.

You've lost me, I'm afraid.

Again, the motive behind efforts to run special items on February 11 is to participate in the protest (not to write about it, but to become part of it).

Wikipedia started as an activist cause and, despite unjustifiable obstacles, remains one, provided that we can avoid getting bogged down in frustration and focus simply on what we can do.

Yes, Wikipedia's mission is inherently non-neutral. This is a discussion about its encyclopedic content. It's impossible to eliminate all bias, but we do our best.

Obstructionism is limitless, but so is our creativity.

I'm sorry if you regard opposition to the idea of Wikipedia participating in the protest as obstructionism. My goal, like yours, is to do what I believe is best for Wikipedia.

That includes examining the problem that you mentioned earlier (with the deletion of an article about a modest-sized city in Pakistan as an example), so please provide the discussion link(s). —David Levy 23:27, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

There have been a few related events in the past such as Stop Watching Us which are indeed candidates for the February 11 DYK push. And TDWFB is most directly targeted at passing USA Freedom Act and stopping FISA Improvements Act, both candidates also. I don't recall all the village threads - here's one of them [45] but not the worst I remember, which was some AfD .. somewhere. Wnt (talk) 00:03, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Again, those articles relate to the political cause behind the event, not the event itself. And that isn't the only issue, as I've tried to make clear.

I can't comment on other discussions, but the one to which you linked doesn't match your description. I see from your comment that you regarded the proposal as an example of "contempt people show toward Indian and Pakistani locals", but it was based upon the articles' poor quality (and the idea that readers would be better served if pointed to broader articles for the time being), not a belief that certain cities are unworthy of inclusion in the encyclopedia. —David Levy 00:32, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

It's quite possible that this was already in the discussion and I just missed it, but is there a template we could put on our userpage? WP:NPOV and possibly WP:OWN would have problems with any other pages (to me, since this affects Wikipedia directly, we should at least take a small stand against it, but that's just me), as we can see by the discussion above, but would putting this hypothetical template on our page for that day violate anything? Supernerd11 :D Firemind ^_^ Pokedex 05:48, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Can someone (Jimbo preferably) please collapse this sub-thread? It has become a blame game, and this is not what Jimbo was asking for. It's distracting from constructive solutions. (And there's been enough bloodletting on this at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Holds not being respected at WP:DYKN.) Thanks. Someone not using his real name (talk) 08:50, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

What Wikipedia is not

See WP:DEADLINE to start. I think it's wonderful that there's a POTD and some DYKs available, but contorting everything else because Jimmy thinks it's a good idea is frankly a bad idea. --SB_Johnny | ^talk✌ 23:15, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm also concerned with the single focus of this. If it's actually going to be NPOV, there has to be mention of the snooping conducted routinely by Google, recent concerns about voice data from the iPhone, and other, commercial uses of snooping and surveillance. If all it's going to be is some sort of self-congratulatory rant against the NSA, it's quite frankly a sham and political activism. Intothat darkness 14:35, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Well, what most of the people are doing right now is writing and promoting drafts and nominating DYKs. If you want to do that for Google, iPhone, or other companies, by all means, please do! WP:WikiProject Mass surveillance isn't defined any more precisely than mass surveillance, so you'd be more than welcome to join and work with us. None of that, of course, makes you or us NPOV. No person is NPOV; only articles can be NPOV, when they fairly and comprehensively explain everything from all the reliable sources available. Wnt (talk) 19:59, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

I'll reiterate what I said before. Most people don't care about this NSA issue, or perhaps even tacitly approve of the NSA's actions. And stemming from that, a number of admins think it's inappropriate to use Wikipedia for "fighting back" purposes; so they have taken the necessary steps to prevent the use of DYK etc. for such purposes. Jimbo doesn't own Wikipedia either, so it seems any gesture of solidarity will have to be made by him personally or the WMF, if they can agree to that. (And amusingly, the issue of "zero as a price" [46] applies both to the discussion about spying [47] and to what get's published on Wikipedia['s main page].) Someone not using his real name (talk) 09:16, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

What we can do

Well, it's not the Main Page, but Portal:Mass surveillance/Intelligence and the associated WikiProject illustrate that Wikipedians are at least putting some effort into covering these issues. Wnt (talk) 13:14, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

This is great work. Bravo to the stamina shown by Wikipedians. It was incredibly tough wading through the strong reactions. I am impressed by the ability to remain unemotional and get good work done. My hat is off to HectorMoffet, and everybody who helped out. An important project has just begun. petrarchan47 t c 03:26, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Example of criticism - Report about Wikipedia being "a menace to society" published across the world

http://www.t-online.de/computer/internet/id_67681618/manipulationen-in-wikipedia-dauerbeschuss-von-pr-agenturen.html

(Translation kudos to Google Translator...)

Wikipedia manipulation is "a problem for democracy"

Copy of the article removed as a copyright violation. -mattbuck (Talk) 10:23, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Nonetheless it is worth highlighting a few statements under Fair Use. As translated by Google:

Malte Landwehr, a specialist at manipulating Wikipedia articles PR consultant, told monitor as the procedure is this: "There are many professional providers who work on such a level with so much effort that the Wikipedia there really no chance has to reveal it. "

On one hand, desired information would be specifically enhanced in articles, on the other hand removes unwanted information. Landwehr've worked on several projects, where was doing, he said in an interview. These manipulations would not be in the open and have permanent existence...

Even the Wikipedia authors confirm that the attacks of PR agencies are becoming increasingly sophisticated. Dirk Franke, honorary author, PR Hunter and one of 250 administrators at Wikipedia told by very advanced manipulation at Wikipedia. Since going to tricky the weighting and the tone changed for individual paragraphs and, for example, in the criticism-paragraph also adds a critique of the critique. "This is an eternal cat-and-mouse game for years drags on," he said.

The big problem of the online encyclopedia: In the Wikipedia there is always less honorary active authors like Dirk Franke and more and more paid writers like Malte Landwehr who work for PR agencies and have even managed to administrator privileges on Wikipedia. "I have several PR agencies in Germany known to have at least one user with administrator privileges," he says...

Now to be sure, if Wikipedia can motivate some good people to do development, it can fight back against stuff like this. For example, we could have a built-in feature with an article that hunts through the history for references that have been removed, linking to the relevant diffs. (I've actually thought about writing such a thing myself in Javascript, but it would be better for a program to have access to save its interim data files so that they can be reused by other readers, and to be widely and easily accessible by editors who never heard of it) Wnt (talk) 12:39, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Create lists to gauge scope of problems: I think if there are just a few wp:COI problems, then people could be warned of concerns, and focus instead on large, continual writing of paid-advocacy pages. Perhaps we should create some lists to check for excesses, such as:
• "wp:List of corporate articles created by admins"
For admins who have created just a few, or a dozen, corporate pages, then perhaps a discussion could recommend curtailing the activities, but for admins who have created several corporate ~~adverts~~ articles, then perhaps a User/RfC would be needed to assess the impact on an admin's neutrality. Already, people have echoed how "admin abuse" is likely to be abuse to admins, and so there is a sentiment that admins should be allowed to do almost anything. Keeping some lists could help to gauge the extent of the problems. -Wikid77 14:05, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

How is this even news? We had at least three examples of admins with strong COI editing patterns and another with a more moderate one on this page in just last few months. One of the COI admins was even a WMF employee and was caught advertizing her services on a ejobs site. Lost her WMF bit, but still is an admin. On the milder side, an ArbCom member resigned after it turned out he wrote articles about his own projects. I'm sure there's a lot more that flies under the radar, particularly since admins (unlike arbcom members or Foundation employees) don't have to disclose their real-life identity to anyone. Someone not using his real name (talk) 12:00, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Public domain

Where do I ask about copyright questions? Are WPA funded painting at U.S. post office in the public domain? I've seen at least one image at Wikipedia commons. I did some work creating articles on the artist who did some of them and it would be nice to have images of their work. Is there a general discussion board for people working on articles? A place to get input and ideas? I find the individual WikiProjects can be useful but are sometimes not very active and often insular. Thanks. Candleabracadabra (talk) 16:52, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Start at WP:Copyright questions. I have to say that in the past I've had some strange experiences there and have tended to avoid it. It seemed to be a place where you could go to have somebody imagine a reason that a work wasn't in the public domain. I'm not kidding, I once had a 3 week discussion there why a 300 year old painting couldn't be copyrighted.

Commons now has a special copyright tag for WPA works saying that the are pd. There are possibly some tricky areas - there's a whole list of 1930s agencies that people tend to call the WPA. For Post Offices you probably want the one called Section of Painting and Sculpture which was part of the US Treasury and is as pd as pd gets. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 17:51, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion, thoughts and clarification. You are absolutely right. Although the paintings get lumped in with WPA projects they were done under the Treasury Dept. known as The Section. Helpful to know that they should in fact be Public Domain. Have a great weekend. Candleabracadabra (talk) 21:35, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

A couple of things, just because it was a government WPA work does not mean it is in the public domain. The artist ALWAYS retains their copyright on these works unless you can demonstrate that this was indeed a work for hire, the only way an artist can give up their rights to the work outside of selling the copyright.--Mark Miller (talk) 00:02, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

I don't understand your argument Mark. How is a contract for public art not for hire? Candleabracadabra (talk) 06:48, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

It isn't an actual argument...its actually copyright law. If I paint a picture for the WPA, I have to do either of two things. I must admit and declare the works as a "work for hire" releasing the rights immediately, or sell the rights I own". Many editors will not do the research and just throw "PD" as an excuse to upload someone else's work. Problem is...it is a copy right violation if not actually public domain. pretty simple actually.--Mark Miller (talk) 06:52, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Mark Miller is quite correct. A work is only a "work made for hire" in copyright terms if a specific contract between the creator (artist, author, sculptor, whatever) and the employer says that a specific work, or works generally created as part of the contracted employment, is a "work made for hire". If the contract doesn't mention this, or there is no written contract, the copyright remains with the creator unless it is sold or assigned (again in writing). If a work is a "work made for hire" then legally the employer is considered to be the creator, and initial copyright would vest in the employer. Except that if the employer is the US federal government, the work is therefore a "work of the US government" and is PD from the moment of creation. The application to WPA projects and similar publicly funded art ist ot determine the normal contract practices of the specific agency involved. If these invariably made the art a "work for hire" then it is PD, otherwise the content of the specific contract for the specific work must be looked into. These are often filed with the Copyright Office. DES ^(talk) 20:33, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

It would be really nice if someone who knows would explain the meaning of "WPA". Thanks Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 09:29, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

That would be the Works Progress Administration.—John Cline (talk) 09:39, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Purge-refresh equations

WP has been in a 3-day typesetting crisis (7–9 February 2014) for numerous major math pages with equations aligned by <math> tag '{align}' or '{alignedat}' which had generated red-error messages, were bugfixed yesterday, but some still showed the glaring errors unless cleared by "?action=purge" (or edited), due to the wp:Page Reformat Crisis delaying fixes for days/weeks. I have purge-refreshed the following pages:
• Calculus, Derivative, Integral, Fast Fourier transform,
• Completing the square, Quadratic integral, etc.
Users should be prepared to wp:purge-refresh any other math pages which are still displaying those red-error messages for 3 days about "\begin{alignedat}" in some equation math-tags. -Wikid77 22:36, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Top 500 math pages: Most of the major math pages seem to be reformatted now to show equations with math-tag '{aligned}' or '{alignedat}'. See list:

WP:WikiProject_Mathematics/Popular_pages - lists Top 500 pages

Some equations were even aligned at bottom of "Probability density function" as the math pages have become overly complex treatises on each topic, with several multi-part equations in each page. -Wikid77 05:36, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Help update Olympics pages

This is a reminder for more people to update articles about the 2014 Winter Olympics (in Sochi, Russia), 7–23 February 2014, which are currently being viewed several times per minute. More is needed about the weather conditions, as the average temperatures usually reach

This userpage has been blanked. If this is your userpage, you can retrieve the contents of this page in the page history. Alternatively, if you would like it deleted, simply replace the content of this page with {{db-u1}}.

, but this week seem to be more like middle

This userpage has been blanked. If this is your userpage, you can retrieve the contents of this page in the page history. Alternatively, if you would like it deleted, simply replace the content of this page with {{db-u1}}.

and could include the conditions in the nearby mountain slopes. I think people would appreciate even basic copy-editing for text grammar and phrasing in the general sports articles or hundreds of current athlete articles, for almost 300 medals in the 98 events (see: "List of 2014 Winter Olympics medal winners" and follow wikilinks to other athletes). -Wikid77 22:36, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

NBCUniversal would also appreciate this help from the Wikipedia volunteers! - 2601:B:BB80:E0:209F:EC6E:3CD3:5324 (talk) 03:27, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

The warmer weather in Sochi is being noted for melting the mountain snow, and seems to have enough sources now to support a separate article, with earlier sources explaining plans to offset any potential melting of snow. -Wikid77 05:36, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

More on mass surveillance

I was thinking "Mass surveillance at the 2014 Winter Olympics" where people who plan to attend have been warned that the WiFi network(s) and mobile phone connections are likely bugged to detect any potential threats disclosed in daily conversations. In general, any writings in pages related to mass surveillance would support the events planned for 11 February 2014. -Wikid77 22:36, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Actually, the Wikipedia events were canceled for TDWSB. Supernerd11 :D Firemind ^_^ Pokedex 06:46, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

No, not at all: WP:Mass surveillance is here to stay, and this would be a great DYK for the project. There's also http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2014/02/06/russia_olympic_shower_cams_hosts_dismiss_hotel_complaints_by_citing_video.html ... I had given this a minute for the dust to settle (and perhaps for someone to publish particulars on the cameras) but we should have an article at some point. Wnt (talk) 13:56, 10 February 2014 (UTC)