User talk:Jimbo Wales: Difference between revisions

(Manual archive list)

More pillars

In wondering why these bottlenecks persist (slow edit-preview for 2 years), I have been remembering the strategy for "continuous improvement" (with Kaizen and all). Basically, the underlying values of a system, the pillars, must be set to favor, to empower major improvements. Perhaps some new pillars: Performance, Progress, and Readership.

• Performance: Even the word "wiki" means "fast" and everyone should worry about performance, otherwise it is no longer "Wiki-" anything. Hence, we have articles on Egypt/Israel that need 30-40 seconds to edit-preview. That ain't wiki. If processes drop into 7-level approval steps before allowed into mainspace, that is no longer fast. Let's coin the term, now, to beware when it turns "Sicki-" (easy to remember!) and needs treatment to regain health as a wiki. The value of Performance is not be belittled, but instead becomes a core pillar.

• Progress: I was warned, many years ago, of the adage, "People dislike change". That means: if you hold a vote to change something, the election will typically decide "no". I think we have enough evidence to confirm that adage certainly seems true. The whole driving force for progress must be an underlying value in the system. It is no longer wise to ask people if they will allow change; instead, it must be guaranteed, where Progress is an underlying value.

• Readership: WP promises "anyone has access" and if the readers say that it is too slow to bear, then that is another reason to make improvements. Now, the concerns of the readers become a major value in the WP system, another pillar.

More later. -Wikid77 (talk) 14:34, 16 July, revised 21:50, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Impact of pillars: The key point here, about emphasizing those issues as pillars, is to emphasize their vital importance when sorting out priorities. Consequently, the related guidelines, standards and best practices would be written with central focus on performance speed (or clarity), plus easing progress towards better methods, and also focusing on concerns for current or future readership, as also being high-priority issues. No longer would the speed of article page-loads, or reformatting, be a lower secondary issue allowed to become slower, year after year. For instance, more people would know how a small template with one #switch of 20 choices could run over 500x times per second. Also, more people would know setting the Special:Preferences default image thumbnail-size smaller or larger, from the typical 220px width, to perhaps 120px or 250px, would bypass article-cache copies for that user and incur the reformat penalty for almost every article viewed, whether popular major articles or stubs, so all would appear by reformatting, 10-50x times slower than viewing the cache versions. Similarly, for viewing prior revisions of an article, more users would know how any prior revision of a page is reformatted every time when viewed, even if already just viewed a minute earlier, the page get reformatted again. Hence, the pillars direct the amount of focus of all users upon the core values of the operation. The pillars determine the focus of the basic "sum of all knowlege" for running a wiki better. Otherwise, editors could justifiably state, "Don't worry about Readership, because any readers, who care enough, can join a discussion to form consensus", rather than pro-actively consider Readership an important aspect which always influences any decision made. -Wikid77 (talk) 12:02, 17 July, revised 03:47, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Where can I find a facepalm image of sufficient size to respond to this? No, wrong, just wrong. "the pillars direct the amount of focus of all users upon the core values of the operation" Yes, they do - and the "core values" of Wikipedia have nothing whatsoever to do with "speed of article page-loads". This is an encyclopaedia, not an exercise in abstract software 'optimisation'. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:12, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Well, this is a wiki-encyclopaedia, and a "wiki" is a type of computer website (networking interface), so ignoring the computer aspects would be ignoring half of the name "Wikipedia". -Wikid77 21:53, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

P.S. "It is no longer wise to ask people if they will allow change; instead, it must be guaranteed, where Progress is an underlying value". Is that a direct quote from uncle Joe, or a paraphrase? AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:15, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Joe generally tail ended the majority position in the party, much more of a demagogue than a dictator. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:00, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

• Progress is part of the "quality revolution" (see: Google Search link), where the entire organization finds ways to change to better practices. When people know more about the computerized display and transfer of information, then they can better judge how to improve the system each month, rather than wait until articles need almost a whole minute to edit-preview. -Wikid77 21:53, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

• Vacuous management-speak isn't 'progress'. And Wikipedia would be better if its users needed to know less about "the computerized display and transfer of information". AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:01, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

I think it would be great if article editing could be faster, but such technicalities should not be pillars, nor should they motivate any changes to content writing policy. Technical formatting should be in the service of article writing, not the other round. Solutions to technical problems should be judged by their usefulness as experienced by contributers, not by any standardized measure of efficasiousness or "end user satisfaction".·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 22:13, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

• Must predict problems against performance standards: I understand the view toward "usefulness as experienced by contributers" and that would become part of the focus, but there also need to be prior performance standards, set in place beforehand, so that techniques, templates, or images can be managed, in advance, by predicting the impact on pre-defined performance standards. It is not enough to ask accident victims what should be improved, nor to ask ex-Wikipedians who have quit, as to their recommended better standards of operation afterward. Instead, I try to think about "industry standards" where a computer "should respond to the user within 7 seconds" if practical. Many studies in ergonomics have revealed aspects of computer performance which could be used to define some basic performance standards/guidelines when working with computer users, subject to "wp:Ignore all rules" but try to codify how edit-preview of 45 seconds is not acceptable, year after year. -Wikid77 21:50, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

"It is never forum shopping to post on this page. Ever."

Can I make the same ruling on my talk page? Why or why not? Hipocrite (talk) 00:22, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

You really can't, because Jimbo's statement glosses over the reality and dynamics of this page's importance. He may not consider it forum shopping to post on this page, but many of the 'go ask Jimbo' questions are entirely too-thinly veiled attempts to draw attention to something, since this is one of the most (and most eclectically) watched talk pages, is watched by a lot of people holding positions of responsibility, and it has the historic open invitation from Jimbo. That is, while it may or may not be forum shopping since it is not a decision-making page, posting here will more often have the net effect of canvassing. But the larger question should really be... is this really a bad thing? In a situation that works by consensus, the current "loser" in any discussion has no disincentive to attract a larger audience, because more people can't usually provide a worse outcome, and the larger a discussion, the higher the likelihood of a "no consensus" outcome. The winners in a WP:CONLIMITED discussion, of course, benefit from such a dispute not being publicized widely. I'd actually think a more apt comparison is that posting to Jimbo's talk page quite often parallels a Hail Mary pass by someone "losing" a discussion. Jclemens (talk) 01:05, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Personally Jclemens I disagree with you. IMO if an editor wants to put a message on thier talk page that says that anyone can leave a message and its not considered forumshopping then thats up to them. It opens a big door and the user should accept that but I don't view it as against policy but up to the decision of the editor. Just my opinion. I would though that the message should contain a link (as this one did) to the main discussion though. Kumioko (talk) 14:13, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

For most user pages, there's no question of FORUMSHOP (although CANVASS applies...), since most user pages aren't watched nearly this much. After all, it's WP:Centijimbos, not "jimbos" or "kilojimbos".... Jclemens (talk) 18:34, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

The Holy Relic of Jimbonaeus Walesimus is one of the more powerful in the Hallowed Crypt of Vagaries and Ineffables. With one wave, thine enemies may be smitten by an ignoration of all rules and precepts, while onlookers verily say mighty loads of trouts can be cast among us in all directions. Truly even the Holy Hand Grenade of Antioch dost pale in comparison to the slightest glimpse of the Relic. No shopping was done by him who brought forth his concern before the Relic, and yet many would yet say it was shopping nonetheless. Truly such paradox can only be contained herein. -- Avanu (talk) 02:30, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Although I don't agree, I think Jimbo's intention is to have an 'open-door policy' where there are no restrictions to the use of his talk page.--TP (alt) 01:30, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

But that doesn't change the fact that many editors use his talk page as an attempt to forum shop in order to try and overrule some other incident. Silverseren^C 02:07, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Many editors attempt it. It rarely works. More often, it simply attracts more attention to the underlying issue, to the detriment of the person posting here to avoid accusations of 'forum shopping' - and asking Jimbo to "consider some kind of intervention", as above, is exactly the type of posting that tends to boomerang most. I think it often works as a sort of safety valve - and sometimes (rarely) posting here may help us focus on the real issues, rather than the endless bureaucratic nonsense that so often dominates elsewhere. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:43, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

What I would say is that it has worked less over time, which I ascribe to the increasing political maturity of the community.--Wehwalt (talk) 07:15, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. I've followed the "Run to Jimbo" phenomenon for some time now, and it usually has the same result: Losing debate --> Run to Jimbo --> People become interested --> More opposition to your cause. Ultimately, this talk page is about as ineffective at enacting change as ANI. Resolute 14:07, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

I think people are overlooking an important point. In a very significant number of cases, people who complain here about forum shopping are just simply and purely in the wrong on the underlying issue. One common technique to try to win what is a hopelessly brutal and unfair attack on someone is to try everything you can to avoid independent minds taking a look at it. Suppressing discussion by screaming about "forum shopping" or "canvassing" is very frequently a sign of something bad happening. There is never anything to fear for the righteous party in asking more people to take a look. This is, as was mentioned above, a rather 'eclectic' place to do that, as people follow this page for a wide variety of interests.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 08:50, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

So are you saying that the policy section on WP:FORUMSHOP should not exist? Because, if they don't apply here, then they don't apply anywhere else either. Silverseren^C 09:47, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

I think that WP:FORUMSHOP is too often relied on to shut down or suppress legitimate discussion than it is to deal with actual bad behavior. As TheDJ says below, "There is forum shopping, and there is forum shopping." One of the things that are unhealthy about the constant jabbering about canvassing is that alerting people to an issue deserving of more attention is a risky activity. I think that policy about forumshopping and canvassing is fine, but we should examine how it can be (and is) misused to stop people from doing good work to generate consensus.

Let me give a personal example. I've opened a discussion to brainstorm what I hope is a thoughtful way forward on the personal image filter issue. I mainly want participation from people who agree that a filter is worth doing (and worth compromising with others to achieve), and from thoughtful opponents who feel they could be persuaded if the thing is done in a suitable fashion. I have a pretty good idea of about 20-30 great people who I'd like to be involved in that discussion. What happens if I go around and notify them on their talk pages? Well, I don't want to find out, but I'm pretty sure I know: a massive community drama about canvassing. So instead I just talk here on my talk page and feel happy that Signpost picked it up. I think that's really problematic - if even I can't convene people for a specific purpose, I'm sure others feel even less empowered. That's not good for community or consensus.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 10:28, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

@ Jimbo Wales, I recently saw an editor go to different talk pages of people he knew and explain that he was starting discussion of an idea or two. It worked out. Useful discussion of those ideas has been happening. Obviously, that editor knows his way around well or that wouldn't have worked. I'm sure it helped that his ideas for new initiatives have so much merit. the editor's name is Dennis Brown. I think he may still be helping out in the discussion to increase editor retention. So my point is that it is possible to contact 20 or 30 editors to ask if they'd join in a discussion. If I wanted to do something like that I'd ask Dennis Brown how he did it. NewtonGeek (talk) 11:43, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm flattered that you think Jimmy could learn something from me, but I think you give me too much credit (and thanks for the point here, I don't normally watch this page). When I started WikiProject Editor Retention, I did so without an answer, instead gathering people so we can first find the real problems and together search for solutions, making it a bit different. I think this is different than canvassing (which IS improperly claimed all too often, see my RfA). Others might say that I exploit opportunities to link the project on high profile pages to bring awareness to the issues when it is applicable, but I would never take advantage that way. We have cookies and punch there, by the way. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 12:06, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

I'll bring pie and ice cream. NewtonGeek (talk) 12:25, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't think you have to go to an opposite extreme to justify one exception. This user Talk page is a unique one among many others. Perhaps there will come a day when another editor gains some degree of status and will have a similar large viewing audience, but suffice to say, this page is unique. One exception doesn't upend all of policy and society. Jimbo seems to have indicated long ago that this page will be a place where exceptions can be made and people can be ignored or listened to simply because. Think of it as 'royal prerogative' if you wish. The community can decide to discuss and weigh in or can avoid something entirely, or Jimbo can remove it by fiat. It is one place where the non-bureaucratic-Wikipedia still exists to some extent. So let it be the miracle in the meadow, where ethereal sprites play and dance, and let the magic live unquestioned here. -- Avanu (talk) 10:00, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

(e/c)There is forum shopping, and there is forum shopping. It is there as a useless behavior that that annoys people and doesn't help drive your point forward. There is posting so omnipresent that it becomes annoying (because the same people are answering the same question over and over again at different fora) or SOO present that it can be considered spamming. There is also the BOLD variant of it, where you basically just have to kick an issue up and up, because people simply have not noticed what you have posted. However, this is Jimmy's talk page, it's HIS courtyard, not our shared forum. So as long as he is not personally annoyed by it (as made clear by his personal statement), in my opinion, forum shopping doesn't apply here (especially with the special status Jimmy has). At most WP:CANVAS applies slightly. People should stop capturing things in WP: shortcuts and start applying a bit of measure to the labels they put on people. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 10:06, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Hello. I'd like to buy The Forum. How much does it cost? --Dweller (talk) 10:16, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Well we have WP:verifiability for that it is never forum shopping to say something here and as we know the mantra is 'verifiability not truth'. ;-) You really do always have to allow a way of complaining about the system so I agree this has to be an exception to any rule about forum shopping however formed. Dmcq (talk) 11:10, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Personally, I grow weary of all the claims of forum shopping and canvassing. The act of notifying many people isn't canvassing, it is how it is done that determines whether it is appropriate or not. I have my own bad experience where my previous silence still leaves a scar. Coming to the most neutral and heavily watched page on Wikipedia, here, can't really be canvassing because there are simply too many diverse and independent people here, so there is no singular person or group to persuade. It is simply shinning more light on a situation, cutting both ways equally. It can't be forum shopping because it isn't a forum, plain and simple. It is more like a bar, where everyone wants to say they know the bar owner, and it attracts every kind of patron, good and bad. I don't normally watch this page, but it seems that people come here in desperation, as a last hope, even when they don't understand that they are clearly in the wrong. Perhaps sometimes they are not. That function is served no where else: the last hope. I wouldn't be inclined to take that away from someone, nor brand them as a policy offender for reaching out in this fashion. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 22:22, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Jimbo, what you wrote here is very noble, but FYI not so long ago, an editor was banned and blocked because he/she raised a legitimate issue here. Evidently what you write here has zero impact at the AN/I and ArbCom. --109.65.205.91 (talk) 16:39, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Which editor was this? Tarc (talk) 16:41, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

"This" might be the one who was already a sock, who then continued to make new WP:EVADE accounts again and again (✉→BWilkins←✎) 17:22, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

We tied Google+ as a social media site

Apparently Wikipedia is giving off an image that this is a social media site rather than an encyclopedia. In this CNN article they say, "Google+, the 1-year-old social network that pundits declared dead last year, ties Wikipedia at the top of the list of social media sites, with a score of 78 out of 100."--v/r - TP 21:12, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

The report itself--v/r - TP 21:15, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Like :) A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:24, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Eh, encyclopedia, social media - they rhyme, and they're both on the Internet, so they're the same thing, right? - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 21:33, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

In other news, Wikimedia Commons has recently tied Redtube.com as the highest rated porn site (✉→BWilkins←✎) 21:41, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

If Commons is a porn site then I won't be working at my new job for much longer :D -RunningOnBrains^(talk) 23:31, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia is engaged in social information processing and as such is a form of social media, and is currently accurately classified as a collaborative type of social media. This often repeated meme that Wikipedia is either an encyclopedia or a social media site is and always has been wrong. Viriditas (talk) 22:56, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Sure, anything crowd-sourced (so-called) and collaborative is always going to be classifiable as "social". Nothing to be ashamed of... —MistyMorn (talk) 22:48, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Of course, comparisons with Facebook and YouTube, for example, does feel a bit like apples and pomegranates, and maybe not entirely complimentary to the online encyclopedia. Presumably (I haven't checked) the ratings are based on feedback from any user, including consumers of information who don't go in for direct social interactions. The pollsters can always reply that they're looking at satisfaction with the social sites as a whole, rather than with social interactions on the sites. —MistyMorn (talk) 11:45, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

I have a question regarding page view statistics. If a page is viewed externally, like from huggle for example, does Wikipedia get credit for the view? If mirrored sites, external editors, and dashboards don't record as a view here, how skewed would that make the results? 76Strat ^String da _Broke da (talk) 23:23, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

It won't count mirrors (though I would suspect they hold only a minuscule fraction of the global views); but external tools that actually contact Wikipedia will be counted if they view Wikipedia through the normal web mechanism (HTTP). Tools that use the bot API will probably not be counted, however – and I don't know offhand which of those AWB is. — Coren ^(talk) 00:37, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

I'd think the API would count, it's still an HTTP connection.--v/r - TP 01:10, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Possibly, but that's not certain; it's all in what data, exactly, they look at. Personally, I'd exclude API calls regardless of the transport because automated edits are not really informative when you want to measure traffic: their use pattern is unusual, and don't match "visits" by any reasonable metric. I expect they are (or should be) treated much like crawlers, and left out of "visitors". — Coren ^(talk) 02:44, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

How did public libraries score? Consolidated corporate publishers? 75.166.200.250 (talk) 02:40, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

On a more serious note, Wikipedia is pretty easily defined as an encyclopedia built through crowdsourcing. Crowdsourcing is a form of social media (well, at least, it'd be easy to argue that it is). Ergo... - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 04:10, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

WP:ISAFORUMGETUSEDTOIT Wikipedia is a forum, get used to it. Never going to take the top position as the number one social website, but it's use as a forum will be a primary attribute as it grinds itself into marginalisation. Penyulap ☏ 00:43, 19 Jul 2012 (UTC)

Gah! Me on a social media site? I feel contaminated like I just found half a slug in my sandwich. :) On a more serious note there are I feel quite grave dangers in making it anything like a social site as that encourages in-groups rather than neutrality. Dmcq (talk) 09:28, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

see my little exposé, how one lovely simple sentence turns into a gazillion pages of infighting between factions over the inclusion or exclusion of newbies. CREEP is the tool of the hour for creating in-groups. The fundamental systems of wikipedia in place today generate exponentially increasing discussion. To repair, or even slow the problem by streamlining only speeds up the increase. While everyone is distracted looking at the number of articles and the number of editors, the cultural changes will broadside the project, you don't even see it coming. The editors who don't join and the editors who leave go somewhere, the number in that 'pool' of potential you don't even track, why would you ? Penyulap ☏ 18:29, 19 Jul 2012 (UTC)

One reason people don't want to be admins. I was considering adding a script that scrambled my password if I ever started up an RfA subpage since I must have gone doolally to do so. Dmcq (talk) 19:02, 19 July 2012 (UTC) Actually though that one is rather overlong at least they were discussing something reasonable. It's when they get onto introspection and recusal and baring souls at a place like AN/I is when it really gets at me. Dmcq (talk) 20:45, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Lord Lucan

I recently re-wrote this article, which has just been promoted to FA status. If the username is accurate, it appears that the subject's wife/widow objects to some of its content. A content issue involving a peeress who was almost murdered by her husband (Lucan is infamous in Britain) may be an issue for the WMF, especially as she seems to be unaware of policies like reliability and verifiability. Discussion here. Parrot of Doom 21:32, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Based on running checkuser, I conclude that this is unlikely to be the real Countess of Lucan, but rather a known abusive sock puppeteer. I recommend that a full checkuser investigation be launched to confirm my informal results. Having said that, I think the content questions should be taken seriously, not as first-hand reports, but as potential problems to review. (If there are no problems, that's great!)

It's probably best, despite my results, to treat the user with respect as if she/he is who she/he claims to be, with a request that they get in touch with Wikimedia UK to validate their identity to us. That'll probably be the end of it. The main reason I say this is that the ip number traces to what appears to me to possibly be a public terminal. Would a 75 year old Countess possibly be using a terminal in a Westminster City Council Library? I have no idea, but would not want to presume certainty.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 02:09, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

My research assistant tells me that it is not unknown that personages of great distinction use Westminster City Council libraries. The [Dowager] Countess is active, even 38 years after the events in question, in making her side of the story known. Sam Blacketer (talk) 20:43, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Question about BLP and rape allegations

Drew Doughty, a star player for the Los Angeles Kings, was recently cleared of rape allegations in relation to an incident from this spring. Predictably, the media has been all over the story, and so there are a plethora of reliable sources on the matter (1200 results for "drew doughty rape" on google news vs 1730 for "drew doughty"). My question is, given that the police elected not to press charges, should it nonetheless be covered in the article? It clearly passes all tests for notability and verifiability, but I have reservations due to the BLP aspects. On the one hand, I feel it's unfair to him to enshrine this incident on his page when the police felt there wasn't anything to the allegations, but on the other hand it certainly has been a major story and may deserve coverage on that ground alone. I feel pretty conflicted about it, and would appreciate any guidance you might be able to offer.

Thanks, Throwaway85 (talk) 02:29, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure what past practice has been, but my gut it that this would merit one sentence, noting that allegations were made (sources), and that the police felt there wasn't anything to these allegations (sources). That way, people coming to his bio will see that the allegations are acknowledged, and the release from those allegations noted as well. I do note Wikipedia:BLPCRIME, which suggests accusations not be placed until a conviction is secured --KarlB (talk) 02:33, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

• Mention unproven claims in broad subarticle, not bio page: A reasonable approach to writing about notable allegations would be in a subarticle of wider coverage, such as "Legal issues of Drew Doughty" which would focus on multi-year scope, and also consider impacts to him rather than treat the text as aggressor versus victim. In trying to avoid wp:SOAPBOXing about specific short-term events, and focus on a long-term view, the title of the subarticle should convey a multi-year topic, but within that topic, then a notorious set of events could be given more text, in proportion to the amount of coverage, over multiple years. Such broad-scope subarticles will require more research, to include legal issues from previous years, and not start the focus as "Let's talk about the recent unproven rape allegations" (no, mention more topics). Instead, each legal issue would be given adequate coverage, in the subarticle, where any unfounded allegations would be described in terms of impact to his contracts, family attitudes, or impact to interacting with fans, because he is the main subject of the article, not opinions of other people seeing themselves as victims or suffering. The overarching goal is to provide NPOV coverage of the allegations in a broader subarticle that deters wp:GRANDSTANDing about events that would have sensational appeal. In that manner, the widespread notable coverage of events is described, but the subarticle is never available to empower "yellow journalism" about a recent event. Wikipedia's guidelines about these cases are still weak, in regard to deterring sensational article titles and casting aspersions on those accused of misconduct. Hence, the placement of text outside the main article, under a neutral title, with broad consideration of some related multi-year events, can really dampen the impact which would otherwise taint a main BLP article with hot-topic, or tabloid phrases. Always reduce the space available for wp:SOAPBOXing or wp:GRANDSTANDing by having broader coverage. -Wikid77 (talk) 23:14, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

• Never believe those approximate Google numbers. It's an advertising tactic, meant to make you feel like they're some unstoppable juggernaut, when really, their index however impressive is not that good. When you page forward you get 153 Google News results for "drew doughty rape" [1] and 576 results for "drew doughty" [2] (quotation marks not used in the searches). Wnt (talk) 12:45, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

• If you must include something in the main article, include it in a phrasing like "so-and-so was cleared of such-and-such charges, which got extensive coverage in the press." - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 13:02, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

• Bluntly, this pretty much comes down to being a false accusation, but as is usually the case, the accusation alone is enough to stain the person wrongfully accused permanently. The question for me, is are we going to play a role in that staining? Resolute 13:32, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

• Should allegations of serious wrongdoing which never led to charges being brought be included in a BLP? No, absolutely not. There is no good argument for including such allegations, and many good arguments for excluding them. It doesn't matter if parts of the media have given them coverage; Wikipedia should aspire to higher standards than the tabloids. As for the suggestion by Wikid77 above that a separate article on Legal issues of Drew Doughty should be created, I'm alarmed at the idea. 'Legal issues of X' is a terrible idea for an article, and any such creation should be deleted as a BLP violation on sight. Robofish (talk) 18:46, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

You have been mentioned in discussion in relation to amending the unique powers your account possesses as a route of appeal from Arbcom

Dear Jimbo, I have mentioned you in discussion here in relation to amending Arbcom policy to remove reserved powers related to appealing arbcom rulings from your account. You may be interested in any discussion that will happen there. thanks, Fifelfoo (talk) 02:49, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

I hope you don't give up your appeal powers until Arbcom shows greater commitment to justice. 75.166.200.250 (talk) 20:57, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Special Barnstar
	There's only one suitable reward for the founder: a very, very special Barnstar. Userboker (talk) 09:54, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

According to one Wikipedian "one childish statement" is not "harrassment"

I would disagree. I did not investigate the full extent of the statement or the circumstances, but I'm sure alot will be written concerning it by others... given your recent support for something to happen about cyber bullying, I was wondering yours and the Community's thoughts about an Admin having said such a thing to someone who came to them for help. I think civility should be extended to having admins be sympathetic instead of "boys will be boys" attitude of "suck it up" and "get thicker skin" and my all time favorite "more heat than light" (the single most obnoxious over-used piece of 'baloney' used on Wikipedia to make oneself look semi-intelligent). I'd love for the dispute processes we have actually be run by those who care to actually get involved instead of run by those who would rather call those that complain "whiners".

collapsing OT that explains a small redaction
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
@Camelbinky: I've redacted a word which could be deemed offensive (please see WP:BIAS). —MistyMorn (talk) 02:10, 20 July 2012 (UTC) I've undone the redaction. First, redacting bologna is ridiculous. Second as redacted, the obvious fill in the blank would be ...obnoxious over-used piece of shit..., so the redacted version is far more likely to make the editor look bad then the unredacted one. If Camelbinky wants to remove it they are free to do so, but it is certainly not justified to redact it from the comment of another editor. Monty845 02:28, 20 July 2012 (UTC) One hemisphere of my brain wants to remain silent and laugh as the typical Wikidysfunction continues for several days. The other wants to suggest that C use the alternate spelling "baloney" so that MM can sleep tonight without staying up worrying about this. The third hemisphere thinks I should self-importantly change it myself without checking with C first. [flips 3-sided coin] and... it's #2. --Floquenstein's monster (talk) 02:46, 20 July 2012 (UTC) (edit conflict) You think it is "ridiculous", I don't (please read WP:BIAS), although I don't wish to dramatize in any way. I tried to do this in the most unobtrusive manner possible, and chose to use six asterisks (******) to avoid the "shit" connection (although using the name of a beautiful city as a pseudo-polite euphemism is not good). I would be grateful if someone uninvolved would reredact in as discreet a way as possible [baloney would be fine] and collapse or remove this subthread - thank you. —MistyMorn (talk) 02:49, 20 July 2012 (UTC) The relevant guideline is located at WP:TPO. The potentially offensive word here does not rise to the level envisioned there. Monty845 02:58, 20 July 2012 (UTC) MM, show a bit of Dunkirk spirit and stick to your guns. If you welsh here, you'll be sent to Coventry. That's just according to a lesbian friend of mine. Formerip (talk) 03:01, 20 July 2012 (UTC) (edit conflict)That depends where you're from! —MistyMorn (talk) 03:09, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

For someone to be guilty of harassment requires a course of harassing conduct directed at an individual or group of individuals. A single comment can be rude, uncivil, and even actionable misconduct, but alone it is not harassment. Monty₈₄₅ 19:56, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Was about to say the same thing. Harassment is the result of a pattern of incidents rather than a single incident. So no, "one childish statement" is not harassment. That does not mean it should be overlooked either, especially if egregious. Resolute 20:01, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

The point I was trying to make was that the admin should have been more understanding and helpful rather than dismissive. Perhaps looking at it from the point of view that the editor mispoke using the word "harrassment" and the admin could have done more to be helpful.Camelbinky (talk) 20:58, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

One childish statement is not harrassment. It could well be a personal attack, though. - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 21:22, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

I just saw this, based on Camelbinky's comment below. I'm not sure your intent here Camelbinky. You're cherry-picking a comment from my talkpage that is in relation to at least 3 threads (and a Diplomacy barnstar) from a specific user. I'm certain that if you asked TheIrishWarden their interpretation of what I said, it certainly would not match your attempts to drag my name through the mud for apparently reason. Please review those 3 threads on my talkpage - you can find the link quite easily. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 16:41, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

For ease of access: Here, here and here cannot be read separately. There certainly was no brushing off an editor, it was merely reinforcing the "ignore the troll as we had discussed before". (✉→BWilkins←✎) 16:46, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

"Ignore the troll" is no different than the "boys will be boys" and "ignore it and he'll leave you alone" attitude that is no longer acceptable in schools today regarding bullies. If you find yourself not being able to be a part of the solution then you are indeed part of the problem, perhaps take yourself away from even commenting on any complaints in which your answer is "nothing to be done about the problem" and leave it to those who would find an answer and be constructive and not criticize. And as far as your comment on the other thread that you have undone a block that was wrongly done, please show me the link that, I would love to see three you have done, but one is enough. Last time I checked I could not find one in your history out of last 12 at the time I checked, it has been a year though and perhaps things are different. But I have a feeling if I checked your last 20 block reviews I would probably have unblocked at least 3 or 4 more than you. And assume good faith on "attempts to drag my name through the mud for no apparently [sic] reason", I am not dragging your name through mud, my actions are not for no apparent reason, and the reason is I do not agree with your actions, comments, or ability to be an admin and frankly do not wish for you to be an admin. That is my opinion and a valid one I am allowed to have, if you feel it to be uncivil so be it.Camelbinky (talk) 17:16, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

You pick a comment off my talkpage then say "perhaps take yourself away from even commenting on any complaints in which your answer is "nothing to be done about the problem" and leave it to those who would find an answer" You're telling me to not reply to threads on my talkpage now? Hmmm, that would indeed be uncivil, especially to an editor whom I'm in the process of guiding overall. We do have an essay about Do Not Feed the Trolls, and helping someone to put away the troll food is not advocating/supporting bullying. You can take a quick look at my own talkpage to see the history of racist trolls that I no longer feed.

Oh, and I unblocked someone this morning as a matter of fact, based on their unblock request - and I remember at least one other in the last 7 days - they're out there for anyone to see.

I have no issue with people having personal opinions, or indeed am I ever beyond critique. However, cherry picking words, taking things out of context, and randomly making stuff up don't help me to fix things. Have actually good reasons. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 17:58, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

I asked for the IP to be blocked because they called me a 'horrible little shit'. That was not the only reason why, I have been harassed by similar IP's for the last week and every other IP who harassed me in that way got blocked immediately for harassment. As far as I'm concerned there is some major sock puppetry going on with these IP's and they need to be blocked temporarily. The SPI can be found here. A single comment may look not that bad but when you penetrate the surface of the case you'll see there has been around 10 comments from different IP's. Thєíríshwαrdєn - írísh αnd prσud (talk) 18:08, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Plus Bwilkins really helped me to settle a dispute with EggCentric last week which is why I gave them the Diplomacy Barnstar. I don't think they have recently been following what has been the aftermath of this dispute last week, so I wouldn't blame them for refusing to block. I'm sure if they knew the full extent of what has been going on (continual harassment, had to get my talk page and user page protected and SPI cases to try and find culprit) they would have blocked them straight away. Plus the only reason I sent this to bwilkins was because they blocked one of the first IP's just after the dispute was settled so I thought they would be more willing to stop the IP. thanks Thєíríshwαrdєn - írísh αnd prσud (talk) 18:13, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

#SaveRichard

[3] needs only about 15,000 more signatures before rumor has it that Parlament would be compelled to debate the issue. Is that rumor correct? I thought that was only true for petitions created at http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/ on which I can find no mention of the issue. Should you ask signatories in the UK to try that route? [edit: "if the subject of the e-petition is currently going through legal proceedings, it may be inappropriate for a debate to be held" says the FAQ.] 75.166.200.250 (talk) 21:23, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

There is no truth to that rumor. Getting this to a parliamentary debate is more likely to be accomplished in other ways.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 13:51, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Please weigh-in at this AN/I report

I am getting very discouraged here lately, as I have only been trying to improve articles as best as I can. Recently I have been having some serious disruptions/intimidation/harassment issues and so I opened an AN/I report. It turns out, as things are run here now according to some admins, if you take a complaint to AN/I, then you are considered as guilty as the user you are reporting. Indeed an admin recently commented: "Also remember, that when you file at ANI, all of your behaviours come under the microscope too ... are you sure you're doing this correctly?" Is this really how AN/I is supposed to work? Imagine if assault victims had to defend their related behaviours while pressing charges against an offender. The same admin called me "pathetic" and told me to "grow the fuck up", all for reporting edit-warring and abusive/disruptive editing. Do you think this is how admins should behave?

Please take 5-10 minutes to review this thread, please. Thank you very much Mr. Wales. ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 23:36, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Don't forget to advise me GabeMc when you report me ... and don't forget to add the whole context. You were in the middle of a childish situation between you and another editor, which led to an ANI report. You then continued your edit-warring and filed an AN/3rr against the other editor while the ANI was still on. You were refusing to accept any responsibility or advice, and continued your childish bickering with the other editor across multiple fora. You continued to frustrate the hell out of the community. Yes, I think you need to grow up. Oh, and the part about "your behaviour comes under the microscope" - um, it says that when you file at ANI, and that was not even related to a situation you were involved in. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 23:51, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

One thing is clear at the Administrator's Noticeboard (for Incidents), there is a very clear lack of decorum, politeness, and professionality by some participants. The general atmosphere at AN/I is very charged and combative. The general attitude expressed by "all of your behaviours come under the microscope too" is not one of seeking to educate and help an editor get on the right track, but a challenge that simply serves to attack people who often don't know how Wikipedia works.

At the top of the AN/I page, it says "Do not clutter discussions here with irrelevant side-discussions", yet this is more often a rule of thumb for participants at AN/I, who devolve from a debate on the issues, to one about the editors. It isn't as bad as Mos Eisley, but at times it is a wretched hive of scum and villainy. Even if GabeMc were simply midunderstanding the situation here and BWilkins is 100% correct on his present point, the overall point is very valid. Our eternal admins are not perfect, they are human, they make mistakes, but when they do make a mistake, it is usually met with contempt when anyone happens to notice. I don't recall whether I have actually seen an apology for poor decision making or questionable blocks. I do what I can to try and focus debate on policy issues and not on unrelated personal attacks there, but even this is met with a bit of disdain, as if my efforts are merely dilatory.

However, as with anything complicated, I reserve judgement. I am almost 100% certain that most actions by the admins on Wikipedia are unseen, thankless, subtle, and excellently virtuous. But if those actions we see are rife with moralizing, resentful, personal attacks, or are characterized by a lack of honest admission of human frailty, I lose hope for them. -- Avanu (talk) 00:09, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

AGF applies to ANI as well. From what I have seen ANI is usaully quite civil with the occasional comment going to far but with others responding to the incivility etc. I don't think that there are the level of personal attacks as Avanu suggests; commenting on editors at ANI can be a relevant thing to do. I don't think this is fair or accurate either: "Our eternal admins are not perfect, they are human, they make mistakes, but when they do make a mistake, it is usually met with contempt when anyone happens to notice". Claiming something is a personal attack or uncivil etc when it is not can be disruptive itself. IRWolfie- (talk) 13:49, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Looking at AN/I en masse, IRWolfie is right. Most reports at AN/I are handled quickly and with civility. That is not the problem. I might liken it to a man who is imminently reasonable and professional when he deals with his co-workers, his boss, the grocer, and his wife, BUT he screams at his kids and beats them. We might say he is 'usually civil' and be right. But it is still a mess and still awful. -- Avanu (talk) 15:51, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

BWilkins, this is not a formal report of any kind that would require I notify you. At least not that I am aware of. This is a talk page, not a noticeboard. Anyway, I stand by my comments and actions. You were not at all helpful IMO, if anything you have only made matters worse, and your hostility toward me was unbecoming an admin IMO. Also, I was not part of the problem as you have assumed and erroneously stated here and elsewhere. I was restoring a recently promoted FA back to it's MoS compliant version, that passed FAC only days prior to the full-blown edit-war, which began as light sabotage on the talk page a week before that. I wasn't edit-warring, you are incorrect about this. A more in-depth reading of the totality of the situation would certainly reveal this. ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 00:16, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Hmmm ... I was never hostile towards you. Frustrated for being in the middle of trying to resolve your situation in one spot, only to find you spreading the issue across multiple noticeboards and behaving very poorly overall. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 09:16, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

I think you can understand that "frustrated" can come across as hostile to someone already in a dispute. It's a mild and subtle WP:BATTLEGROUND-ish mental state that's difficult to avoid. - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 12:59, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

BWilkins, you called me childish, pathetic and you told me to "grow the f--- up", where I come from, that's called unprovoked hostility. BTW, AN/I has completely vindicated me, showing how wrong you were all along. My advice to you is to look a little deeper into an issue before you weigh-in at AN/I accusing all parties involved of being as guilty as the one they reported. Also, guilty or not, I do not think anyone should be treated the way I was treated by you and others at AN/I. ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 21:29, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

I perhaps may have I called your actions "pathetic" ... not you. I'm also unsure where you got "vindicated at ANI" - I recommended to you to voluntarily undertake an interaction ban" instead of forcing the community to implement one - unfortunately, you decided to force the community to implement that interaction ban. Your definition of "vindicated" seems a bit off (✉→BWilkins←✎) 21:39, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

How was I vindicated? Well, the user I reported was topic-banned for one year, I was not punished for my part. The IB is largely protective IMO. Isn't that vindicated, that the party I reported was banned and I wasn't? You assumed I was as much a part of the problem as they were, you could not have been more wrong about this. Also, I have never been through that before, so your advice wasn't helpful. A simple note on my talk page advising me would have been helpful. ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 21:43, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

But my only discussions were related to the hostile environment the 2 of you had created, not the topic ban of the other editor. As such, my ONLY "requirement" in this entire situation was to see either a voluntary or enforced topic ban. My advice to voluntarily be interaction-banned was, in hindsight, brilliant. It's unfortunate that rather than see the advice for what it was, it's now a community-enforced situation. Please note: this is also not about "winning" - recommending an interaction ban was about protecting you, the project, AND the other editor - I have never had a horse in this race (✉→BWilkins←✎) 22:14, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

I never said I "won" anything, this was never about winning, this was about reporting and preventing disruption and editor abuse. I said I was vindicated because you implied I was as guilty as the user I filed the report on. I said you were not helpful, and I think your actions are unbecoming an admin IMO. For example, today you made this sexually explicit, and battleground-esque comment at AN/I: "I did, indeed, whip out my gigantic "admin phallus" (it's huge) and somewhat successfully temporarily resolve the current situation: the edit-warring". Perhaps a joke, but certainly an innappropriate one, especially at AN/I and made by an admin. I assume there are more examples where that came from, but I hope I am wrong about this. This is one example of why I sometimes make comments about inappropriate admins and how their actions at times can make for an uncomfortable and hostile editing environment. Perhaps you should take Mr. Wales advice (read suggestion) as you suggested I take your advice and take 6 months off of admining before you require the community to desysop you itself. Isn't that pretty much what you told me, that I should follow your advice? Now you aren't folowing Mr. Wales' advice to voluntarily desysop for a while, seems a contradiction of philosophy. See, when the shoe is on the other foot its not so simple is it? Why should I have taken your suggestion to voluntarily step-back yet you seem to be ignoring Mr. Wales' nearly identicle suggestion? ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 22:27, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Are you kidding me? On ANI this morning, an editor stated: "He may not be the only one looking at it but he's the only one who waved his big admin-phallus" - so my re-quoting of them is not out of line. Again, context here. Picking and choosing bits of a conversation to poorly supplement your argument is part of the reason the community was forced to create an interaction ban. I personally have nothing against you, and I would encourage some greater maturity from you as you move along in your editing. Good luck. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 22:34, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

My views on this are quite simple. An admin telling a user to "grow the fuck up" is absolutely unacceptable under any circumstances and is ground for immediate desysopping. If we care about having a serious, thoughtful, kind, adult and mature community (which I assume was the sentiment behind that unseemly outburst) then we have to model that behavior ourselves as admins. There's a bit of sad irony in behaving in a juvenile and bullying fashion in an attempt to get others to behave better. Bwilkins, I recommend that you turn in your bit and take a break from being an admin for 6 months and then return if you feel you can handle the job in a more responsible fashion.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 13:49, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

That would be nice, wouldn't it? Sadly, language like that is quite common nowadays, not just among admins but among established users in general. Anyone who criticizes this is part of the "civility police" and is being told to shut it and grow a thicker skin. --Conti|✉ 13:59, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Well, if that's true, that needs to change. We know that editor recruitment and retention is a key issue - you don't get there by behaving like bullies, you get there by being friendly and helpful... but also by being firm about asking people to leave positions of responsibility, or possibly even the community altogether, if they are generating a toxic atmosphere.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 14:37, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

• The issues about admins being "civility police" is more related to the fact that admins should be tolerating heat in discussions that are on topic, and we shouldn't interfere with an otherwise fruitful discussion for the sake of enforcing rules when we haven't been asked to. We shouldn't block someone if they say "that is bullshit", for example, although some admins disagree. The rules are different for admins for good reason, as when we accept the bit, we accept the bridle as well, and we are expected to show a little more decorum and restraint, and this was clearly outside those expectations. Desysoping without a showing that it is a pattern seems a bit strong, however. I try to encourage other admins to speak out when they see it, and do so myself, although it isn't always greeted warmly and sometimes flatly dismissed. And yes, this is absolutely an editor retention concern, and developing a culture that finds it unacceptable would be the goal. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 15:08, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Dennis Brown, are you suggesting that if a pattern of this behaviour could be found on BWilkins part that you may change your mind in regard to his voluntary desysoping. ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 21:49, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

(ec, to Jimo Wales last statement) Hear hear! Thank you Jimbo Wales for considering my own plea section titled "Help!" a few days ago. Your light steps changed an ANI incident that was spiraling out of control. The toxic atmosphere there has been truly horrible. Self-selection is a big factor: the toxic atmosphere attracts the worst, repels or burns out the best. It has been truly truly awful.

P.S. This very edit by me was edit-conflicted and i received notice of a new ANI brought against me. A huge aspect of the horror of ANI are the numerous catch-22's now present in wikipedia, some identified within the Wikiproject Editor Retention that dennis brown is involved with, that i am just exploring. Just one catch-22 is that it is there is no acceptable way to note that a harassing editor is harassing you, because noting anything negative is deemed a personal attack. --doncram 15:28, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

It's for darned sure that repeatedly calling them "evil" is not an acceptable way to note it. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:31, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

So we rise above it. Civility isn't just in the words we use, but it is also expressed in how we respond to others. There is a time for righteous indignation, of course, but more often, we ought to simply rise above it. -- Avanu (talk) 15:47, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

All, as I desired to provide some non-public information, please be advised that I have e-mailed Mr. Wales this morning, and await his response. Be aware that the public admonishment by the "boss", and indeed, knowing that I let him and the community down is perhaps more of a lashing that anyone can ever expect - and I hope none of you receive. Considering the focus that I personally have on civility (as seen in part by some of my essays, templates and overall actions), this is (as some have said) not typical for me. Please, note, however, that my phrasing is only a minor part in the situation that the OP is requesting assistance in - I encourage you all to assist them with resolution in their incident without allowing my inappropriate statement to detract/be a red herring from the overall situation. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 16:04, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

I haven't read your email yet, but thank you so much for this comment. We all make mistakes. The key is that we accept and understand that we can make a positive difference with kind words and an insistence on high standards for ourselves (even in the face of extreme provocation!).--Jimbo Wales (talk) 16:45, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

For what it is worth Bwilkins is the admin to which I refer to in the thread I created about an admin brushing off an editor who came for help. Bwilkin's "grow the ___ up" attitude has long existed and is not new nor rare. If anyone wishes to review the number of unblock requests that Bwilkins "reviews" and then denies versus those that he actually reverses they will see also a pattern of rubber stamping blocks and bans by others and rarely (if ever) seeing one that was done that should be reversed. In fact I had to bring to AN/I one that he denied and unblock request by someone and it was undid over his objections. Also, it's been awhile since I've been around but I do believe shortly before I went on extended leave the Community decided on a consensus that removing things from your talk page including the right to remove unblock requests after they have been denied. Bwilkins recently chided another editor for removing it, while the right of removal is controversial it shows pattern of conduct with many other incidents. I commend Bwilkins for his apology above but reiterate that this is an ongoing and common occurance and that desysop really should be looked into for this particular admin.Camelbinky (talk) 16:33, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

I have addressed CB's rather odd interpretation of the last in a series of threads from my talkpage in the thread above (that I had not seen until now). For CB's edification, editors may not remove declined unblock requests while the block is in force, as per policy. And yes, I decline and accept a wide range of unblock requests - it's not a task that will make you friends in most situations, just like many admin tasks. I do, however, review each carefully and work my butt off to try and get most of them actually unblocked if I can. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 16:50, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes - full support for these comments - Youreallycan 16:35, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

My perspective is a bit different, I suppose. I'm not as inclined to want to desysop as quickly, but I am wanting to create a culture where admins are a bit more free to criticize their fellow admins. I have felt less than welcomed on some admin talk pages (and email) when I have made an observation about conduct. I am a "new" admin (but an old man) and perhaps that is part of their doubts, although it shouldn't matter. I would rather try to get us all working as a team, equal with the community, and try to reduce the "us vs. them" attitude that is prevalent on what is now both sides of the issue. I think we need to engage more and ostracize less, which is one of the goals of the Project. This is why I've supported RFC/U being empowered to deal with sysop issues, including having more options than "nothing" or "desysop" for solutions. And why I've tried to get both admins and non-admins involved with the editor retention issues equally. Being forced to deal with sysop problems only at ANI or ArbCom is less than optimal in most cases. I would rather extend a little good faith with Bwilkins and open up a dialog, encourage him to become part of the solution, to help develop and adopt new and more flexible standards for sysoping. Personally, I think he is a good guy, even while I disagree with some of his methods. In the long run, we need to create a culture of kinder adminship, not by pushing people away, but by bringing them into the fold. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 16:58, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

• FYI, Mr. Wales, as someone who has worked with BWilkins extensively, I absolute think you are wrong in your recommendation to BWilkins, and I have a few reasons for it. Let me explain:
  • First (and of least importance), I have worked with Bwilkins and he has been an exemplary administrator in every way, save perhaps this time. Removing the bit from him would be bad because he's just a really good admin.
  • Second off (of middle importance), slipping and using foul language is not ideal, but it is not at all grounds for removal of his sysop bit. At very worst, he should be asked "please don't do that." I realize that swearing is not ideal (especially when telling someone they're being disruptive), but it is common on Wikipedia. Yes, he said it while censuring someone, but to assume good faith, the word itself was not directed toward the user: it was more just an exasperated way of expressing "my goodness, why are you guys so disruptive."
  • Third off (most importantly - please read this if you read nothing else in my post), as someone who has handled the edit warring noticeboard, I absolutely am familiar with the tendency of disruptive editors to be... well, litigious and disruptive, and how frustrating that can be. Being willing to wade 5 feet deep in the cesspool that is content disputes is the hallmark of an administrator who's actually doing his job by looking into the dispute. However, with all the wikilawyering, personal attacks, disruption, etc. that go on there it is very easy to become exasperated with the users in these disputes. Those of us who are willing to actually willing delve into this anyway are quite likely to hit some form of snap point. So immediately punishing one of the very few administrators who is actually willing to wade into the stinkhole is a terrible idea. Yes, we should encourage editors and should not swear at them, but to discourage eff ective administrators from doing their job by immediately calling for their head after the first slip up is every bit as bad. If admins aren't willing to handle content disputes for fear of censure, then the disputes will continue to fester and cause even more problems than they do now. I'm not sure how much you've waded into disputes around here, but they are time consuming and awful and are one of the biggest blights. We do not want to create a chilling effect on administrators who are actually willing to step up to the plate on these issues.

• As such, I implore, nay I beg that you rescind your recommendation, and instead simply ask for an apology. Your word still carries a lot of weight around here, and I would hate to see BWilkins lose his bit for a while because of it. I, for one, spend the majority of my time doing menial administrative work outside of AN3 (mostly, patrolling {{NowCommons}}), and I do not want to lose my bit and my ability to do this work because some day I'm in a poor mood and use poor wording when dealing bluntly with a user. If BWIlkins is desysopped, I will almost definitely stop patrolling the difficult cases on AN3 (out of concern for the good of the work I do elsewhere, not out of spite).
• Sorry for the WP:TL;DR post, but I have a lot to say and I feel very strongly about this issue. I hope you have time to at least scan my post.
• Regards. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 18:22, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
• PS. Even if it is too late and he's already asked to have his bit removed, please still consider rescinding your recommendation and stating that he should have the bit readded. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 18:22, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
• PPS. Full disclosure - I am involved in a nasty personal dispute where I overall handled the issue poorly with a user who is upset that I told him "grow a backbone" on ANI, which is similar to what BWilkins did above. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 18:51, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Related to Magog's "full disclosure" above, take a look at this thread at ANI. ANI can become a circus, and more incidents like these are sure to happen if the atmosphere continues as such. --Jprg1966 ^(talk) 19:52, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Jprg1966, and perhaps this is a baby step toward policing AN/I, because as it is now, any troll or kingmixer is allowed to drag the discussion off-course while flaming the involved parties and generally acting in a disruptive manner. Penylup's actions at my recent AN/I report are a prime example. No one even tried to redirect them, while I was being ridiculed and berated they went about making things worse, and no admins stepped-up to keep the peace. They did tell me to shut-up though, because afterall, at AN/I, the report filer is even more guilty than the user the complaint is filed against. AN/I in general needs reform, if nothing else the general decorum and those who comment there should be held to a much higher standard. ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 21:37, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

I appreciate the good faith comments of many of those commenting above, and I'm aware that BWilkins is a respected administrator - including, until relatively recently, by myself. But unfortunately this is anything but an isolated incident.

Only a month ago, in this edit to a fairly new contributor's editor review - a place to provide constructive feedback - BWilkins says "The editor is power/rights hungry, believes that creating poor stubs is an actual substitute for writing articles, fails to take any advice when it's provided; at times appears arrogant and egotistical; totally lacks a WP:CLUE". When politely challenged about this on his own talkpage, BWilkins justifies it by, amongst other things, saying "what he's now infamous for, which is being a royal pain in the ass", and claiming his original comments were intended to be helpful because "By pointing out just how fucking annoying he has been it gives him the chance to learn, so as not be so fucking annoying to the project in the future" (this with the delightful edit summary "ffs - read sometime, rather than pull comments from your ass"). When challenged by others, he goes back to his favourite, "Grow up people". I'm the mentor of the contributor he was attacking, and two of my comments in this discussion were removed by BWilkins, without replies, with edit summaries of "Go. Away." and "Seriously, f.o already."

I've not looked for other incidents involving BWilkins behaving in a similar way, these are just the ones I'm already aware of. Less than a month before that behaviour, was BWilkins' WP:INVOLVED block of another good faith contributor. The block was overturned, and the gory details are in Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive754#Block Review, complete with BWilkins' description of others as "classless" and implying they had assumed bad faith. The one thing he could have taken away from that discussion was the good advice that The "block first, ask questions later" attitude only works with users who clearly aren't here to contribute positively. But this seemed to go in one ear and out the other.

More recent than either of the two examples I've just given, is BWilkins' block of User:Volunteer Marek after Marek had aimed some insults in the direction of BWilkins - thus giving every appearance of a WP:INVOLVED block even though, as of right now, BWilkins maintains he did no wrong with this block either (on a technicality, as far as I can see.)

BWilkins has done much good administrative work in between these incidents, and even some of the good parts have been unreasonably condemned by interested parties. But if someone is going to wield the block tool a lot, just getting most of their blocks right isn't enough. (Especially if the only occasion they apologise for getting it wrong, is when Jimbo intervenes!) Just from these three incidents I've mentioned, it seems that BWilkins really does now see adminship as a "big deal" - and increasingly he sees ordinary contributors as not being colleagues and equals on a project to build an encyclopedia, but sometimes as merely irritating obstacles to the implementation of his administrative tasks. One way or another, this attitude needs to change. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 22:26, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

• I would ask very kindly that you not attribute meaning where they clearly do not occur. "Conjecture" is not appropriate. I also take great offense to the statement that I use the block tool a lot - my blocking log would show quite differently, and clearly shows the opposite of your statements. I also take great offence to the suggestion that I do not apologize when I err - it's very obvious that I do. I'm going to stop attempting to defend myself against bad faith and cherry-picked comments - as I said long ago, I have submitted an e-mail to Mr. Wales directly, and I will take his recommendations in his reply to heart. I will make no further comments about such unbelievably false commentary (✉→BWilkins←✎) 22:49, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

While I think the edit summary and criticism are problematic etc, the comments that were removed don't show you in the best light either. He has apologised and I think the best thing is to move forward rather than picking through his past contributions. IRWolfie- (talk) 22:45, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Why do the comments not show me "in the best light"? He's not apologised for any of those three incidents, as far as I'm aware - he only apologised for the one single incident where Jimbo said his behaviour was "ground for immediate desysopping". That's telling, I think. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 22:51, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

BWilkins, did Mr Wales elect you? You may be putting him in a rather awkward position. But then only he knows what you've said to him. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:57, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Thread recap: Editor points out that administrator told him to grow the f up. Jimbo says this is "absolutely unacceptable under any circumstances" and should result in administrator forfeiting bit. Administrator says he's embarrassed but does not actually apologize. Jimbo says "we all make mistakes" and all is forgiven. Wikipedia leadership at its finest! Townlake (talk) 00:42, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Here are just a few of the many examples where BWilkins has acted inappropriately: this comment is sexist, wow, here they judge some editors to be trolls, something content editors are expected to immediately redact or face blocks, more hostility, here you admonish an editor without offering any rationale or policy examples, here, here BWilkins is seen flippantly threatening blocks like a gangsta, "anyone with a brain", here they accuse an editor of "bitching and whining", more inapporpriate belittling, threatening someone to intimidate them away from AN/I, rude and insulting, rude and belittling, defending obscenities used on wikipedia, ego tripping, comments unbecoming an admin, rude and belittling comments that futher support BWilkins does not read entire disputes before judging the parties, rude/hostile comments directed at a user and their country of origin, what was that about quoting offensive comments?, is this AGF?, poor choices?, more obscenities, "grow-up people", rude, hostile, look at this one, wow, really, from an admin?. I could go on and on, or BWilkins could take Mr. Wales' suggestion, as they insist others do, and desysop voluntarily. ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 01:03, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

• I would add that BWilkins' frequent use of obscenities is bad ink for wikipedia. Minors edit this site, and indeed his use of this offensive language may eventually be directed at a child. ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 01:07, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

It's obvious BWilkins has no business holding a sysop bit on this project. I commend you for your huevos Gabe, but you have to know this has virtually zero chance of succeeding. Admins are bulletproof. Joefromrandb (talk) 01:14, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

You have been edit warring today with another editor across a number of articles today, for example [4][5][6] which BWilkins stepped in and stopped by protecting the articles. This appears like good admin action to me. IRWolfie- (talk) 01:34, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

What's your point? Did I say he should be desysopped for anything he did to me? No. He should be desysopped because as has been clearly demonstrated by others here, he has no business holding a sysop bit on this project. Joefromrandb (talk) 01:44, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

You appear to be taking a unique view on a large number of these diffs. This is evident when one looks at the diffs. The first is not sexist, it looks like he's giving another editor advice with informal language. The second is noting that people who call others trolls, are frequently themselves trolls, it appears to be supporting an editor who is facing vandalism on his user talk page. This exclamation of surprise: [7] and calling it acting inappropriately is unusual, while I find the use of bad language unnecessary it's also unfair to single out a single editor over a statement of suprise. I wouldn't call this advice inappropriate [8]. This is in response to an editor where WP:IDHT is relevant, I can understand that frustration where an editor just doesn't get it (the editors disruptive editing and WP:IDHT mentality had led to a block) : [9]. If there are relevant diffs here you have thrown the chaff in with the wheat. IRWolfie- (talk) 01:23, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Of course you can cherry pick the less offensive examples from above and explain them away, but it should be obvious by now that there is indeed a pattern here. --Conti|✉ 01:56, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Here are some others: this lacks any context (by itself it's perfectly normal): [10]. Bwilkins is pointing out how he is trying to help out the user, the wording is not what I would do but I would not think it uncivil: [11]. I don't see an issue with this diff [12]. I see nothing wrong with this dif [13] either, and do not see how it is "more inappropriate belittling", it was in response to an editor (since indefinitely blocked) who accused Dennis Brown of falsifying evidence, a very serious charge, where the motives of the poster are very relevant. IRWolfie- (talk) 02:10, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Pattern, zomg the guy is a genius at getting his way successfully, like never bother to use the article talkpage, when a flurry of user talkpages will do. [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] (all the same thing, just different users) I need to take my hat off, I'm obnoxious at times just to help the project, but I need to take lessons on how to do it for personal gain instead. Penyulap ☏ 02:14, 21 Jul 2012 (UTC)

User:Penyulap has now been wikihouding/wikistalking me for over a week due to the AN/I report I filed to protect the project, you are all witnesses to this harassment. Has BWilkins ever asked them to stop? ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 02:19, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Also, while I have only ever accused one wiki editor of being a troll, these behaviours of Penyulap's seem all the more ridiculous when you consider that they supported "the" in the poll they are now trying to disrupt. ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 02:22, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Censorship and 2012 Summer Olympics

Sources

Lazzari, Adam (2012-06-25). "SPECIAL REPORT: Do Olympic branding rules go too far?". Eastern Daily Press. {{cite news}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help) Peckham, Deborah J. (2012-06-15). "The Olympic symbols and protecting sport's biggest brand — the London 2012 games". Lexology. {{cite news}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help) Cohen, Nick (2012-07-14). "Censorship Olympics". The Spectator. {{cite news}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help) Macleod, Ishbel (2012-07-19). "Is anyone winning the Olympic Games? - How LOCOG stole 'summer'". The Drum. {{cite news}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help) Silverman, Rosa (2012-07-17). "Campaigners call for restraint on Olympics logo ban". The Daily Telegraph. {{cite news}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1= (help); Invalid |ref=harv (help) Hickman, Martin (2012-07-16). "Britain flooded with 'brand police' to protect sponsors". The Independent. {{cite news}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help) "Olympics: London cracks down on unofficial souvenirs". New Straits Times. Agence France-Press. 2012-07-20. {{cite news}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)

The London Organising Committee of the Olympic Games and Paralympic Games has placed restrictions on the use of certain words associated with the 2012 Summer Olympics.

• London Olympics Censorship (Wednesday, July 18, 2012)

—Wavelength (talk) 16:10, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

• No one is going to haul you before a judge for saying "2012 medal". But if you put it on a T shirt, and hawk it a few blocks from the Olympic Stadium, and then are before a judge, well, sorry. No one at Magna Carta protected the right to pirate merch.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:20, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
• If there were an encyclopaedia around here somewhere, I could point you to what Title 36 of the United States Code, more particularly the Amateur Sports Act of 1978 and the Ted Stevens Olympic and Amateur Sports Act, gave to the United States Olympic Committee. Two of those articles have just had large amounts of partisan prose added to them by LEOLABRANCHE (talk · contribs) who is apparently the plaintiff in (Court case). F.2d. 1988. {{cite book}}: Missing or empty |title= (help); Unknown parameter |litigants= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |opinion= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |vol= ignored (|volume= suggested) (help) and the author of a self-published book …. Uncle G (talk) 16:55, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
  • No, I read it. I come down, in general, on the side of the Olympic folks. There is ample opportunity to make money off the Olympics without using their symbols and words which evoke them. The charity may have a Games party, if they like, with round cakes in gold, silver, and bronze, with the IOC's blessing. But they may not call it a 2012 Games Party. And I may agree, such marketing as they talk about in the article is often clever. But it's still using the Games for publicity which makes money for a non-sponsor.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:18, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
    • Who are the games for, again? The very idea of "using the games" is ridiculous. If they were a private affair then I'd be all for your position, but given how much nuisance they cause to the public (they were part of the reason I moved from London a few months ago) is justified by essentially implying they are public property, and the so-called olympic ethos and other garbage is all suggestive that it's all about the sport, often amateurs only... tis impossible for the people to "use the games" incorrectly. Egg Centric 19:29, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
• For official information: London 2012's UK statutory marketing rights - Brand protection (pdf from here).
  —MistyMorn (talk) 18:22, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
• Not sure what this has to do with Wikipedia. Wikipedia isn't a business and only uses the words and images associated with the Olympics to provide information, not for advertising. (And Wikipedia isn't based in the UK, so UK restrictions shouldn't apply anyway.) Robofish (talk) 19:04, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
  • That would be my impression too, but I know zip about legal stuff - anyway the official guidelines are there. —MistyMorn (talk) 19:10, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Hey! I managed to wedge a reference to that encyclopaedia thing that's around here into the discussion. Here's another: Clearly the London Olympic Games and Paralympic Games Act 2006 article is missing a fair amount of encyclopaedic detail, given the sources (e.g. Lazzari 2012 and Peckham 2012) that seem to be available on this. Do any of you here know any encyclopaedia writers? ☺ Uncle G (talk) 23:53, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Request from Romney for President, Inc.

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

---

Dear Wikipedia and Mr. Wales;

My name is Samantha Jones, and I am a Legal Advisor for Romney for President, Inc.

Gov. Romney is interested in controlling his Wikipedia biography as he believes that it is instrumental to his Presidential Campaign. He also believes that if the page is controlled by third-party users, it will be prone to editors posting slanderous information to the biography.

Romney for President Inc. would therefore kindly ask the Wikimedia Foundation to restrict the editing of the Wikipedia biography, and other pages whose main subject is Governor Mitt Romney, to the Romney for President campaign.

Yours Faithfully,

Samantha Jones Romney for President, Inc.

Well there you go. Funniest post I've ever read in all of Wikipedia. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:10, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Although I agree that this request is laughable I do think that it might be prudent to restrict editing to established users unless its already established. Kumioko (talk) 20:12, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Something needs to be done, or else Wikipedia once again becomes a laughing stock and a vessel for propaganda. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:13, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

I doubt this is a real request. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 20:17, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Real or not, the reality is that this is not possible nor plausible. Understandably, some of the major players in the upcoming election will require semi-protection on their articles, but the "encyclopedia anyone can edit" and the fact that we do not permit promotion says that such a request for complete editorial control cannot and will not be granted. There will be lots of eyes on political articles (I'm not intending to be one of them) (✉→BWilkins←✎) 20:19, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

• Don't worry Samantha Jones. He has enough fans guarding his page to keep reverting anything, no matter how well referenced and covered in the news media, from his page that is negative such as his bullying behavior at Cranbrook school, etc. Those with him during the attack, even confirmed what happened, they quoted and referenced at one point. Had its own separate article even at Mitt Romney Cranbrook incident but that got deleted. Dream Focus 20:22, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

• This has the look and feel of a joe job, I highly doubt the authenticity of the message. Tarc (talk) 20:28, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Agreed. I can't imagine anyone legitimately associated with Romney's campaign would be so foolish as to post such a message on these pages rather than send emails to the Foundation. I think we're getting trolled, though impressively so. Resolute 20:32, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
    • So much so I did quickly check to see if a Ms Jones worked for Romney. Apparently she does. Perhaps not this Ms Jones (as you say, she would never have been so foolish)... The Rambling Man (talk) 20:37, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

This was posted a couple of places. I responded to the version at the Help Desk with due but not excessive calm, as I would to any such clueless demand. I hope that frustrates the troll, if it is a troll. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:36, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

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

Proposal

Why not offer both presidential campaigns a priority service allowing them to notify the WMF about some problem which will then be immediately looked into and fixed if there is judged to be a problem? Since both campaigns are drowning in money, we could ask a big fee for that. Count Iblis (talk) 22:10, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

I recall that either 2, 4, or 6 years ago, someone from the WMF contacted the RNC and DNC and asked that they send any problems that they have with articles to OTRS. From what I understand, both parties were rather happy with the results and they plan to continue that this cycle. NW (Talk) 22:45, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes, somewhere there is advice to politicians and public figures from all districts which suggests emailing OTRS, but if I can't find it I doubt campaign publicists can. It should probably be added to WP:COI and/or WP:PAID. 75.166.200.250 (talk) 01:06, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Hi new here

Hi everyone glad to be at this forum. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.143.184.78 (talk) 23:55, 20 July 2012 (UTC)