User talk:Jimbo Wales: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 23:21, 3 February 2014

Welcome to my talk page. Please sign and date your entries by inserting ~~~~ at the end.
Start a new talk topic.

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

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

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

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

Archives

Index

–index–

This manual archive index may be out of date.
Future archives: 184 185 186

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

(Manual archive list)

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)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

p.s. And hey, 37, methinks you should look of the definition of coercion. Offering the best product for the lowest price is not coercion, nobody is forcing you to buy what wikipedia is selling, it is free-as-in-freedom enterprise. You could argue that wikipedia is subsidized by the state, since we are registered as a non-profit and thus don't pay taxes, but that is a bit of a stretch. Wikipedia could convert our legal status into a multinational corporation tomorrow, and still pay no taxes, as long as we picked our jurisdiction with a bit of care. There is an open proposal to do something like that, in fact. See meta:Wikimedia_Forum#Conclusion:_STOCK_MARKET_LAUNCH for Miriam's idea, and take it easy with the snark please, she has six edits to her name so far. Interesting gedanken, if nothing else. — 74.192.84.101 (talk) 12:29, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This category is definitely 100% encyclopedic, for what it's worth. I have a hard time getting worked up over somebody starting a good category and then starting it up with a few US Presidents. That's how WP works — think of it as a category stub. Carrite (talk) 03:51, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I can't tell if you're being serious or sarcastic. Adding it to those presidents was clearly a case of WP:OC. On the other hand, there probably are people whose main business was closely related to owing slaves, so the category would be justifiable for some. We do have Category:slave traders for example. But it's best to name categories such that they are difficult to use (misapply) in drive-by OC manner. Someone not using his real name (talk) 21:01, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - This actually cuts both ways. For example, Pierre Victor, baron Malouet was a plantation owner (worked by slaves), but because of the non-existent "slave owners" cat, he was added to "slave traders", even though his trading in slaves was probably incidental to his main business of owning (buying) them for his plantations. Someone not using his real name (talk) 21:17, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Manipulated / Distorted pictures

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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

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

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)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In an interview about the film on his website, Anderson discussed his problems when he decided to name his film Fuck instead of a censored version of the word. He said he always wanted to call the documentary Fuck, because it succinctly described the film's contents. There were inherent problems with this approach, including an inability to advertise the film with its true title in mainstream media such as The New York Times and the Los Angeles Times (they used four asterisks instead), although the real title might be permitted in alternative newspapers like LA Weekly. Anderson also anticipated problems displaying the film's title during film festivals on theatre marquees.
Anderson explained that although the title of his documentary was Fuck, he allowed alternate designations using an asterisk. The film and content he controlled would refer to the title as Fuck, including theatrical and DVD editions. He concluded that his struggle reflected the debate alluded to by the documentary, and this realization motivated him to stand firm on the film's title. Because the film is about how a taboo word can impact culture, it was important to keep Fuck as its title.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Here's a concept: terrible idea for the mainpage. See: WP:BLATANTLYOBVIOUSTROLL. Carrite (talk) 03:59, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Are you refering to Cirt? I have no doubt that he's honest, and has put the work in. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:07, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thank you, Crisco 1492, for your kind words. I strongly dispute this WP:NPA comment by Carrite. My quality contributions on the subject matter of freedom of speech include the WP:FA quality article Freedom for the Thought That We Hate and the WP:GA quality article Fuck: Word Taboo and Protecting Our First Amendment Liberties. — Cirt (talk) 08:27, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - Well, it hardly is necessary to read that as a personal attack (as an aside, is NPA anti-free speech), since 'a troll' is also the description of a needlessly provocative posting (although, you were perhaps trolled by its use, above) but we are, after all, discussing a provocative posting, on the main page. Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:37, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      - I'd consider troll a low-level PA, as trolls are considered 1) not worth listening to, 2) not having anything to say that is significant, 3) not constructive or intent on promoting a group effort, and 4) into getting reactions rather than results. In other words, saying Cirt is a "blatantly obvious troll" is tantamount to saying Cirt, his opinions, and the article are garbage which should be ignored or discarded. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:32, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        You have missed the point, 'troll' may refer to a written posting and not a person, and here what was explicitly referred to was not a person but an "idea for the main page." Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:27, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        Why does ASW's attitude make me think of giving out the "pot-calling-the-kettle-black-award" for the incongruity of a troll having the gall to call another user a troll?--ColonelHenry (talk) 19:12, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        ASW, the context does not lend itself easily to a post as a troll. Reading it as a PA is perfectly reasonable, considering Carrite has not replied. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:20, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I agree with Demiurge1000. It's a shame that the only Wikipedia criticism site is dominated by paid editors to the extent that it is. Coretheapple (talk) 11:55, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

With a regular editing pattern of over 1,000 contribs since October, I would hardly consider that a retirement or even a semi-retirement. However, with all due respect to John Cline for at least posing the question raised by the anonymous OP, and taking into consideration Jimbo's 'This, by the way, is not the right venue to actually do anything, and I encourage you to take this to an appropriate venue as well,' I feel the question is a leading one and which Jehochman would only feel obliged to answer at an official venue. There are however other ways of avoiding the nascent drama. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:50, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

Let me please refresh your memory:

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

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

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

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

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)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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 [6] (about Comedy Central using wikipedia to promote their stuff: [Wikipedia] is "a top 5 traffic driver" [for them], they "are saving $20K a month by using wikipedia and the traffic is coming to comedycentral.com. [...] Wikipedia editors become decision makers. [...] If you are marketing content, make sure what is appearing in wikipedia."); info thanks to another SEO in a round-table discussion that aforementioned senior admin took part in. Someone not using his real name (talk) 23:12, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

--Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Block_proposal

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

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

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

That was my point.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"Welcome to Wikipedia,

the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

A cheeseburger for you!

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

Is Commons getting above itself

Hello Jimmy, it has been a while, and I'm glad to see you are still with us; none of us are getting any younger are we? - Seems we are doomed to grow old together - in the same city too I hear; never mind, there are worse things in life. Anyway, I'm digressing: I've recently had a run-in on my first attempt at editing at Commons (although I didn't actually realise I was editing at Commons). Whatever, to cut a long story short, you might like to take a look a this [7] not everyone is quite as resiliant and tough as me. Giano 19:01, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

@@ Line 404: / Line 404: @@
 :::::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. :-) [[Special:Contributions/138.162.8.59|138.162.8.59]] ([[User talk:138.162.8.59|talk]]) 22:51, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
 ::::::Back to editing as an IP again, eh Kumioko? [[User:Resolute|Reso]][[User Talk:Resolute|lute]] 23:11, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
+:::::::Oh its you! Don't you have an editor to block or an [[WP:AFD|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. [[Special:Contributions/138.162.8.59|138.162.8.59]] ([[User talk:138.162.8.59|talk]]) 23:21, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
 == German user "Jamiri" breaching the boundaries of WP and ethics, once again manipulating and deleting comments and critic from other users ==