User talk:Jimbo Wales

(Manual archive list)

Editors for hire

Hi, JW. I'm looking at what you said a few years ago about editors hiring themselves out to write articles for the hiring organisation. It appears at that time you rather strongly considered the practice somewhere between unseemly and corrosive. That is more or less my opinion, though there are obvious questions of how it can be policed if the editor involved doesn't disclose. Has your opinion changed? I'm looking at WWB Too (talk · contribs) in particular. At least he's disclosing that he's being hired by various companies and individuals to write or edit "their" Wikipedia articles (here, here, here, and here, for example), but…h'mm. It appears the community has struggled with the question of whether or not this sort of hired-gun editing is acceptable, so far without consensus. I ask you for your current opinion primarily out of curiosity over whether and how it has changed since your earlier statement on the matter, and without intent to use whatever comments you might have to whack anybody over the head, about the ears, on the kneecaps, or on/in/around any other body parts. Happy gnu ear! —Scheinwerfermann ^T·_C19:47, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

My view hasn't changed at all.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 20:35, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

I'll leave space for Jimbo to reply, directly, above here. However, before letting this topic ramble too far on assumptions, let me repeat that Jimbo said: the COI editors should limit edits to talk-page comments only, and not edit the articles directly. The COI editors need to wait to convince other volunteers, on volunteer schedules, to voluntarily modify articles to state COI-fostered claims. It is not acceptable to play some implicit-consensus games, such as, "If no one objects in 2 days, I will edit the article to state this is the best product since sliced bread, and buy 10 or more for maximum benefit". Please read other editor comments below. -Wikid77 05:01, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

WWB Too is always very up front and honest about any COI he may have, as he completely was in this case. He is a wikipedia contributor in good standing since 2006. I have worked with him previously and he is a good NPOV writer that closely considers policy. Youreallycan (talk) 19:52, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Well, count me as curious, too. As Youreallycan notes, and Scheinwerfermann at least acknowledges, I always disclose my involvement where client matters are concerned and, as a matter of course, seek consensus on Talk pages before considering direct edits. I'm very careful and cautious in this regard—in fact, I wrote a favorably received COI compliance guide earlier this year.

That said, I am well aware that the spirit of Wikipedia is in volunteership—and I have been a volunteer here myself since 2006—so I am respectful of the fact that editors will sometimes be skeptical of this activity. In the interests of transparency, I keep a list of past client projects on my user page to make it easy for anyone to see what articles I've been involved with. My goal is always to make Wikipedia better, and I believe any fair appraisal of my work in this regard will find this to be the case.

Actually, regarding your (Jimbo's) comments from 2009, I very much agree with them, and consider my work along these lines to be consistent with your suggestion: "Now, could it be perfectly fine for someone to set up an independent writing service for GFDL / CC BY / CC BY-SA content, to be posted somewhere else, and for completely independent wikipedians to find it useful in some way? Of course." I think that describes my approach very well. Cheers, WWB Too (talk) 22:50, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm very reluctant to even create the appearance of bringing a contretemps onto JW's or any other uninvolved contributor's page, so I will keep my comment here narrow and brief: I don't understand how your activity can accurately be described as writing and posting comment somewhere else for completely independent Wikipedians to incorporate in articles. No, you are writing Wikipedia articles for hire, right here on Wikipedia. Is it possible one or both of us is misunderstanding what JW meant? —Scheinwerfermann ^T·_C03:04, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

As long as you're asking, I may as well answer: the somewhere else in this case is my userspace, where these drafts begin and remain until completely independent Wikipedians agree to their inclusion. I aim to follow all Wikipedia policies and guidelines as I do so, with special care given to WP:COI, WP:SCOIC, WP:PSCOI and WP:PEW. Cheers, WWB Too (talk) 03:27, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Well WWB Too I looked at your work for one of clients, Cracker Barrel. I'm not Jimbo and you didn't ask for my opinion, but I'll give it anyway: what you are doing is really wrong and bad and you should stop doing it.

After looking at this article, I'm just really mad at you, and just generally appalled. Rather than going medieval on you here I'll continue over at your talk page.

As for the rest of you, it's appalling that this kind of whitewashing of egregious corporate malfeasance (and for pay!) is tolerated, at all. It's just horrible. Herostratus (talk) 08:02, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

I've reviewed three of WWB Too's articles and they seem to me to be neutral in tone, well referenced and balanced. What they are certainly not are whitewashes, as for instance Herostratus would have us believe. I fear it is true to say that unpaid editors can have far greater and more deleterious biases than do the better of the paid editors, and that we might do best to concentrate on worrying more about the content of the article and the approach of the editor, and less about seeking to stigmatize the input of paid editors merely because they are paid. --Tagishsimon (talk) 11:19, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes, and I am sure that Rupert Murdoch would attempt to maintain the illusion of NPOV, at least for a time, if he were to somehow purchase editorial control of Wikipedia. If paid editors are allowed free reign on Wikipedia, it will not be long before they dominate Wikipedia. Being paid for their editing, they will be able to spend far more time and effort supporting their client's interests than volunteers will be able to spend defending Wikipedia's impartiality. This is a slippery slope, and the final result could be the end of Wikipedia as we know it. Ebikeguy (talk) 17:29, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I agree in part. This is why paid editors don't (and shouldn't) have "free reign"—expectations for such editors should include disclosure, a high standard of behavior (and perhaps guideline familiarity), and a strong encouragement to seek consensus before going beyond non-controversial edits. Cheers, WWB Too (talk) 19:06, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately, WP has a history of editors paid to represent the disreputable as reputable. This is not a thought experiment, we've been on the slope for a while already. Ironically, at least the paid POV pushers are forced to do a better job "sourcing" their content under the guise of credibility to collect their paychecks. The issue is how long will reputable editors stick around to counter questionable (at best) content in areas of contention where opinion is elevated to the same level as fact--since WP policy explicitly states that it does not matter whether or not something is true (meaning simply factual, not arguing over "truth"), only that it is sourced. Ye reap what ye sow, folks. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 22:15, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

• Slippery slope and crack in the dam: Fostering a culture of paid-editing is more likely to be a crack in a dam, breaking wide-open to a flood of self-promotion edits. Look at the ocean of adverts in Google Knol, to the point that many common subjects were written as short introductions to long commercial ads. It obviously did not matter to enough Google Knol editors that the whole place was swamped with commercial ads, regardless of whether the claims were sourced, or even still current claims made against competing products. Meanwhile, the long-term WP editors are likely to react poorly, if they think Wikipedia is becoming overrun with self-paid adverts to be updated and polished by time-consuming volunteer efforts. Few editors I have met want self-written vanity pages to be left in Wikipedia, and I have seen them WP:AfD-axe such articles in recent months. I wish volunteers could adequately police self-promoting editors, but volunteers cannot even fix claims that some former religious leader was the "most influential person in leading people to salvation" during 1950-1970. Wikipedia is not staffed with enough people to moderate self-paid claims in numerous articles. -Wikid77 05:01, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Am I a bad person? I stumbled across this discussion, because I am a paid editor. I was never paid for editing WP. Since age 16, I was paid by newspapers, magazines, advertising agencies, publishers. They paid me, because I did a good job. I did not have to sell my soul, I simply had to write well. Until I did read these pages, I never thought I was a bad person for accepting the money.

Wikipedia is the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit. “Can” – yes. “Should” – no. You should not edit Wikipedia if you don’t know the difference between “it’s” and “its,” if you consistently spell “their” as “thier,” if you are an all-around lousy writer. Good writing is a gift, and not all are gifted. There are people who have something to contribute, but due to their nonexistent writing skills, they better don’t. It is perfectly OK for those to pay a writer to do a better job.

What we have here is a case of no good deed going unpunished. So there is an editor who fully disclosed that he was paid for writing, and he gets nailed to the cross for being honest. His offence? He broke a rule that never existed. There is no policy against paid writers on WP. The statement by Jimbo Wales was a statement by Jimbo Wales. It was not carved into two slabs of marble and carried down Mount Sinai. It was part of a veeeeeeeery long discussion about paid editing, which ended inconclusively. Instead of a policy, an essay was written.

That essay says that paid editing “is not currently prohibited on Wikipedia. The community has to date, attempted twice to ban the practice, with the outcome twice being no consensus. It is however been made by consensus that editors who are paid, represent a clear Conflict-of-Interest and are Strongly Encouraged to state this on WP:COIN what articles they are being paid to edit and declare whom they are working for before doing so.” It’s an essay, not a policy. Usual disclaimers apply.

If there is a need, we can reopen the issue of paid editing, with the goal of finding a policy. I recommend caution. Disallowing paid editing will not stop paid editing. It will simply drive honest paid editors underground. WP already is being edited by reams of undeclared PR agencies, lawyers, “company employees in their free time,” and what have you. I would rather deal with someone who openly states that he is doing this for a meager living than be flummoxed by an army of irregulars and their sockpuppet drones.

I don’t think we are having an issue with money changing hands. We are having an issue with WP being abused as a propaganda instrument. WP should not be abused for advocacy, paid or free (the latter can sometimes be much worse). There already is a policy for that, we don’t need a new one. BsBsBs (talk) 15:37, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Now, wait, some spelling errors are OK. At the WP:GOCE Guild of Copy Editors, we deal with many thousands of grammar or spelling errors, often correcting 50-150 per article, in many cases. It is a staggering amount of work, but I say let a subject-matter expert expand an article, even with spelling errors. -Wikid77 12:17, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't know if you're a "bad person" BsBsBs. There's good and bad in everyone I guess. I do know that User:WWB Too is a corrupt hack. He might be kind to animals or have other redeeming qualities, though, and I don't think casting these issues as "not a bad person" is helpful.

I don't know if all editors in the "Wikipedia COI community" are corrupt hacks, but I don't see how they couldn't be. How many are willing to fairly present negative information about their clients? I don't mean "Yeah I'll put in some of the bad stuff so I look fair, and because it's going to go in anyway, so might as well be my weasel-worded minimize-the-harm version". I mean actually doing it fairly and correctly, featuring it if its called for, adding important and damning details, and like that.

If they don't, they're bad Wikipedia editors and should be shown the door by Wikipedia. If they do, they're bad PR people and should be fired by their clients. Either way they shouldn't be here, period.

One of the problems is that it's practically impossible for humans to be fair-minded in this way. "It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it". You know, if someone is signing your checks and helping you feed your family, well of course he's a fine fellow. Of course all those bad things they say about him are overblown. It's only fair to clarify this. You see what I mean? It's only human to feel this way.

Public relations is an honorable profession. Trying to persuade the New York Times to cover your client's speech is honorable. Hacking into the New York Times database to alter the coverage of your client's speech isn't. Do you see the difference? One is fine and useful. The other brings disgrace to you, your profession, and your client.

Gaming the fact that Wikipedia is volunteer-written and has an open database isn't an excuse. If you pervert the essence of what the Wikipedia is for, for personal gain, you're hacking our database. You should probably stop doing that.

Incidentally, you're exposing your client to opprobrium by doing that. We're a public charity. That taxpayers aren't supporting us so we can whitewash the facts. Paying someone to corrupt our database is shameful and might be illegal. You want to expose your client to that kind of ignominy? Maybe you don't care.

Driving bad things underground is a good thing. It is an excellent way to minimize bad things. It doesn't eliminate them. That it doesn't is an argument could be used against all laws and so is essentially a nihilistic argument.

Declaring one's COI does approximately nothing. If I declare that my COI is that I'm a flaming nutcase and hate Jews, is then OK for me to write "Jews did 9/11!" into an article? After all, I've declared my COI, so no problem! Not having a COI -- as in, not editing the Wikipedia for pay -- is what's called for here.

Sorry to be harsh but this is bad bad bad and a potential "game over" for the Wikipedia if this gets out. This is much much worse than if we accepted advertising, for instance. I see a lot of honeyed words surrounding a lot of weak arguments and bad behavior. Furthermore, there is apparently a self-sustaining "COI community" here. They're clever and ruthless (after all, they're professional writers and their livelihood is at stake, so why wouldn't they be) and there are also a lot of editors who think that whitewashing malfeasance is not a big deal. I think this is weak-minded, but between these two elements we are screwed, I would say.

I'm not sure what can be done about this. I certainly can't compete with paid editors and corporate bankrolls. I have my own job. Jimbo probably can't do anything. ArbCom can't set policy so they probably can't do anything even if they wanted to.

It's sad. It's a nice project and a nice website. It's just sad to see it go down this path. Herostratus (talk) 04:01, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

• Calling someone names is bad, uncivilized behavior. It also automatically disqualifies everything that follows. Lose your cool in a discussion, you lose.
• There is no policy against paid writers on WP. If you don't believe it, read this long discussion from 2009, where everybody from Jimbo on down weighed in and which led to no policy.
• It's not game over. There had been two official attempts on bannig paid writers, both fizzled. The game is still on.
• Read the essay on the topic. It was triggered by the discussion. The editor in question seems to have followed the recommendations of the essay to the letter. Executing someone for violating rules that aren't there, and for observing recommendations that are there is lynch mob behavior, plain and simple. BsBsBs (talk) 07:23, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

The above is a classic evading-the-message response. Do you have anything to say about the points made? Johnuniq (talk) 07:51, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

There is no need for a point-to-point rebuttal if the premise is wrong. The correct premise is that there is no policy. No policy, no violation. End of story. Calling someone names totally closes the subject. Stringing someone up for a non-existent crime is lynching. BsBsBs (talk) 09:51, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Well perhaps "calling someone names" is a civility issue, but there is a long-term precedent, "If it's true, it ain't libel" (search in Google or Bing). The recent concerns of COI editing have included contacting other editors to support the fight, and then when those editors badger opponents with multiple, repeated talk-page demands, then not stating that such badgering was out-of-line nor apologizing for contacting them to fight. Those actions seem corrupt. -Wikid77 12:17, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

In regular life, the "truth" defense works only with slander or libel. It does not apply to insults. In other words, even if the other person is an asshole, you can't call him one. By claiming that it is the truth, one is simply perpetuating the uncivil behavior. Also, badgering has nothing to do with being corrupt. If it would, hordes of badgering edit warriors on WP would be corrupt. cor·rupt, adjective: Having or showing a willingness to act dishonestly in return for money or personal gain. BsBsBs (talk) 14:50, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Comment. Last time I found Wikipedia in the news, I posted the link here on Jimmy's Talk page and eventually someone told me to post these links on Wikipedia:Press coverage 2012. This time I added the link there, and just found this discussion. At any rate, I watched C-SPAN this evening, and WWB/William Beutler was being interviewed about his work on Wikipedia on the Q&A show. You might want to watch it here, includes transcript. 99.50.186.111 (talk) 03:46, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, thats a really interesting and well presented interview. William's blog is also worth a look - http://thewikipedian.net. Rather than attempting to vilify people like this, who are upfront and intelligent proponents of the project, the project would do better imo by employing them. Youreallycan (talk) 12:42, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Great interview, sure, but having paid editors here is really the opposite of what the project is about. The articles in question (Association of Global Automakers, Cracker Barrel) both read like marketing blurb and WWB Too has now moved on to spending incredible amounts of time following up and making sure that the articles conform to his bosses' desires. I have a full-time job and a wife and school and don't have the kind of time necessary to protect articles from yet another problematic user with an agenda - a user with waaay much more time available than the rest of us. For instance, the majority of the sources used in AGA are not available online (at least they're not linked) - it smells to me as if AGA simply handed WWB Too a pile of articles that they liked, and then asked him to write a nice article for them. And naturally no one can then demand that he somehow find new articles, especially on a topic which doesn't interest him, but on a topic about which he is writing only because he is getting paid for it.

I really find this a threat to the entire project. If being a skilled WP editor means that you can then become available for hire to push various companies agendas, then I don't see how there can be any room for independent thought left. But I really don't have time to deal with this kind of nonsense, something I thought we were protected from here at WP. I would rather edit an interesting article than spending hours trying to display the obvious bias in a bland-as-pudding article about a crappy restaurant and a crappy lobbyist group. Here in Wikipedia, an editor for hire is worse than no editor at all.  ⊂| Mr.choppers |⊃  (talk) 15:37, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi, you guys. I am disappointed to learn that User:WWB Too is a paid editor. He posted to my talk page and, call me dense, even with his disclosure there I didn't guess. Based on information in the video, he expects to earn his living doing this. Gee whiz, a lot of us (including Wikipedia) could use a source of income, but he was Johnny-on-the-Spot. I urge Jimbo to post his preference. Mine is definitely to keep this place all volunteer. -SusanLesch (talk) 17:47, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

From the look of the whitewashing job for Academy of Achievement that WWB Too is proposing on your talk page, as well as the article that began this discussion, it appears that he is being paid primarily to rewrite articles on organizations that have things they would like to hide from the general public. WWB Too uses his expertise to write articles that appear to conform to Wikipedia rules, while removing all the "bad stuff" that his clients would rather not see. This is truly deplorable, and I reiterate that it is a slippery slope into a Wikipedia that is dominated by spin doctors and other PR professionals. As a professional journalist who understands the difference between promotional writing and objective writing, I beg my fellow members of the Wikipedia community to prevent this from happening. Thanks, Ebikeguy (talk) 04:51, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes and according to this at Association of Global Automakers he's running a tag-team op -- presumably with other paid editors in the burgeoning "COI Community" -- to prevent his odious drivel from being redacted or properly tagged. Herostratus (talk) 17:48, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Even if supporters are non-paid, the related issue is a paid public-speaker who is gaining like-minded long-term fans, who can be contacted via Wikipedia user-talk to come WP:VOTESTACK in a small discussion (even if only 2 are contacted, that makes 3 votes). The issue is contacting a "disproportionate number" of supporters, especially in small discussions, unlike contacting 2 to discuss with 15 others, or at least contacting one known opponent not already notified. Even when a guy starts with good intentions for an article, the focus of supporters is rarely to expand negative-balance text in the article. -Wikid77 (talk) 07:10, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Anyway. Well, this guy is pretty amazing. Looking at the Cracker Barrel article, the level of mendacity, cherry-picking facts, misrepresenting sources, and other egregious offenses in service to his corporate paymaster is pretty breathtaking.

He quadrupled the size of the article (here's the diff] from 710 words to 2818 (the not-s0-nice stuff was reduced from 320 words (45% of the article) to 290 (10% of the article, buried deep) and balanced by 410 words of lying flackery. Anyway, I thought this was kind of funny:

• Added: "[T]here are two separate menus: one for breakfast, the other for lunch and dinner"
• Added: "[A] group of friends had eaten breakfast at the Lebanon location each Tuesday for over 20 years"
• Added: "Cracker Barrel's mission statement... states that 'everyone who walks in our front door gets a warm welcome and a good meal at a fair price'"
• Added: "specialties include... a breakfast platter named 'Uncle Herschel's Favorite'"
• Removed: All mention of the fact they were indicted for giving illegal contributions to Tom DeLay, part of this highly notable scandal which ended DeLay's career.

LOL. One of these things is not like the other! Which one of these is of actual encyclopedic value in getting a encyclopedic understanding on this entity? But I understand. Something's got to go! Can't have the article be too long! Anyway. If you want to find out that kind of information, why are looking in the Wikipedia? Our editors have to eat, you know! They know what side their bread is buttered on! And why do you want that kind of information anyway? What are you, some kind of commie? This is a Fortune 500 company here, my friend. Let's have some respect! If you want that kind of information, the internet is that-a-way, chuckles.

As I say, that's far from the worst of it, very far; that's just removal of information as opposed to outright lying, which is also plentiful. But I don't have worlds enough, or time, to detail all of that.

But I love this in the "Alleged racial discrimination" section: "In 2004, Cracker Barrel signed a five year agreement with the U.S. Justice Department to introduce effective nondiscrimination policies..." Why did they do that? It doesn't say! You can't find out by reading Wikipedia! Maybe they called up the DoJ and just asked to sign a five year agreement because they're just nice fellows!

Oh wait. "More specifically, the United States alleges that, on account of race or color, Cracker Barrel has segregated customers by race; allowed white servers employed by Cracker Barrel to refuse to wait on African-American customers; seated or served white customers before seating or serving similarly situated African-American customers; and treated African Americans who complained about the quality of Cracker Barrel’s food or service less favorably than white customers with similar complaints. The United States further alleges that in many cases, Cracker Barrel managers directed, participated in, or condoned the discriminatory conduct described above."

Oops.

This was covering 50 stores in seven states by the way. Nice outfit.

To be fair, some of us suckers volunteers later cleaned up some of User:WWB Too's work, so hopefully it's better now. Hey, we've got the free time!

Look. Apparently User:WWB Too is this person William Beutler. He speaks real nice. He's got a nice suit. He's super polite. He makes it all sound so reasonable! I'm certain that he's sincere. So what? Have you never heard of "doing well by doing good"? Look it up.

I get it: there's no policy against this corrupt hackery. As long the person is out front about it, no problem.

Oh well then. Herostratus (talk) 17:48, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Herostratus, it's very clear that you don't think much of Cracker Barrel as a company. That is a perfectly fine opinion to have. However, the information that was removed was done so consistent with site policy. Likewise the positive information I've added came from reliable sources, and was handled in an encyclopedic manner. It so happens that Cracker Barrel has a very positive public image, in spite of its historical blemishes. Both are appropriate to include, and so they are. Is it more legitimate for Wikipedia articles to adopt an adversarial position with regard to their subjects? I suggest that it is not the case, and in fact that it is contrary to Wikipedia's guidelines to do so. Relevant controversies should be dealt with dispassionately, and material included should be carefully considered.

As to Global Automakers and Academy of Achievement above, I'm seeking to work openly with the community to create or revise articles in such a manner that they are more consistent with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, not less. That said, there is often room for disagreement, and this is why I state my affiliations up front. As I mentioned at the top of this thread, I always make sure I am careful to follow relevant guidelines and essays related to paid editing, including WP:COI, WP:SCOIC, WP:PSCOI and WP:PEW. I hope you can agree you would rather have paid editors like me than those who would operate anonymously. If I really was a corrupt hack, you probably would never have heard my name. Best, WWB Too (talk) 20:10, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

In my humble opinion, you're holding up the works for everyone involved. Do I have to read WP:COI, WP:SCOIC, WP:PSCOI and WP:PEW just to interact with you? I have to wait for your drafts, and then make your edits for you, otherwise Jimmy Wales will block you. You could have just made your comments like anybody else can and gotten just as good results. Come on. -SusanLesch (talk) 22:39, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

WWB Too, you keep telling us that you are being transparent about your status as a paid editor, but several editors, including SusanLesch who has interacted with you significantly, did not realize that you were paid for your work on Wikipedia until they read this thread or another thread in which you explicitly stated that you were paid for your work here. I strongly recommend that you include a disclaimer stating that you are paid for your work on Wikipedia in every comment you leave on any talk or user page, and that your Userpage contains a bold banner at the top, stating "I am doing Wikipedia editing for clients who pay me for such services." THAT would be truly transparent. Ebikeguy (talk) 00:09, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

With this suggestion of a WP variant of the yellow star, this discussion now officially jumped the shark. This farce needs to end. With there clearly not being any policy against this, the discussion should never had started. The editors who started this were negligent. They accused someone of a crime that does not exist. Those who want to change the rules can attempt to change them, through regular channels, not by running to Mama. Before this is done, current rules (such as WP:COI) should be re-read. Editors also should refrain from behavior which clearly violates existing WP rules, such as uncivil behavior, wikihounding, and more. If there are things to be improved in an article, improve them. BsBsBs (talk) 16:34, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Your equating my suggestion that paid editors identify themselves as such to the actions of the German Nazis against the Jews during the Holocaust is a clear personal attack. WP:NPA specifically states that "Comparing editors to Nazis, dictators, or other infamous persons" is a personal attack. I demand that you redact this comment and apologize immediately.

I did not compare editors to Nazis. Referring to a suggestion that certain classes of editors should have huge warning banners on their Userpage, and disclaimers in every comment "on any talk or user page," I opined that this would be "a WP variant of the yellow star," and I stand by this assertion. BsBsBs (talk) 17:57, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

The "Yellow Star," of which you accused me of using a variant, was a badge the Nazis forced the Jews to wear during the Holocaust. Thus, you directly compared me to the Nazis who were persecuting the Jews. Ebikeguy (talk) 18:46, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

This is turning into a broken record. I am sorry, I will have to ignore you. BsBsBs (talk) 20:31, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

BsBsBs, you are clearly equating Ebikeguy's comment with Nazi actions. You brought up the yellow star, no one else.  ⊂| Mr.choppers |⊃  (talk) 23:39, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Brandmarking individuals, or whole classes of people is inhumane and cruel. Throughout history, it was used to cow, to denigrate, to single-out for mistreatment by frenzied mobs. I shall exercise my right to speak out against it, even if others feign outrage about the words, while lacking the outrage about the reprehensible actions. BsBsBs (talk) 11:31, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Academy of Achievement Contact Information

Although it is difficult to find contact information on their website, I was able to find this email address for the Academy of Achievement, one of WWB Too's clients for whom he is doing paid editing on Wikipedia:<email address redacted - spambots read Wikipedia too Risker (talk) 23:23, 5 January 2012 (UTC)>. I encourage editors who feel strongly on this matter to email the Academy of Achievement and let them know how you feel about their using a paid writer to edit their Wikipedia article. Thanks, Ebikeguy (talk) 04:55, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

I am not a thin-skinned guy. However, if the above does not clearly violate WP's no personal attacks policy, then I don't know what does. BsBsBs (talk) 16:34, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

I have not personally attacked anyone. Please be more specific. What aspect of WP:NPA do you feel I have violated? Ebikeguy (talk) 16:57, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

If you can't see that the above was an egregious, direct personal attack, then you have no business on WP. Would you feel personally attacked if I would find out who you are, and then I would write nasty letters to your boss or customers, and I would urge others to do the same? That's a real, nasty, hurtful personal attack. WP:NPA, which you just cited, strictly forbids "Threats or actions which deliberately expose other Wikipedia editors to political, religious or other persecution by government, their employer or any others. Violations of this sort may result in a block for an extended period of time, which may be applied immediately by any administrator upon discovery."BsBsBs (talk) 17:57, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

I've done nothing that will result in persecution of any Wikipedia editor by their employers, or anyone else. Note that Wikipedia defines "persecution" as "the systematic mistreatment of an individual or group by another group." I have not violated WP:NPA. Ebikeguy (talk) 18:46, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

You have imo crossed the line of Wikipedia:Harassment and you should be blocked. You have encouraged wikipedia editors to take action off wiki to affect another editors real life detrimentally. I want to request you retract the encouragement for editors to do that.Youreallycan (talk) 18:52, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

I disagree. I have not broken any Wikipedia rules by encouraging editors to contact a company using paid editors on Wikipedia. I did not encourage any harassment whatsoever. The email address I posted was publicly available on the company website. Ebikeguy (talk) 18:57, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Note to Involved Editors - Youreallycan has brought me up at ANI for publishing the contact information for the Academy of Achievement. I would like to encourage the editors following this discussion to weigh in at the ANI discussion. Thanks. Ebikeguy (talk) 19:49, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Anyone who is inclined to do so should also consider that the number of my direct edits to the Wikipedia article about the Academy of Achievement, at this point, is precisely zero. What I have done: I've prepared a suggested alternative draft that is posted in my userspace, commented on the article and user Talk pages to involve all recently involved editors in a discussion, which is ongoing, and disclosed my connection to the Academy at the top of every thread. I would also invite anyone here to consider the content issues under discussion on the Academy Talk page, which are legitimate. Ebikeguy, that goes for you, too. WWB Too (talk) 13:21, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

We simply don't have the kind of time at our hands to compete with a paid editor, especially one who has the skills to keep following the "letter of the law" of Wikipedia, while violating what WP is supposed to reperesent. Volunteers may have their own axes to grind, but at least the personal opinions of various editors represent a democratic effort. It doesn't make me happy to harm someone's ability to earn a living wage, but this must be dealt with now, before WP is nothing more than yet another corporate playing field. If some guy happens to love Cracker Barrel (I eat there on most road trips) then I welcome his edits. If WWB Too is paid to whitewash Cracker Barrel's article, then I feel personally threatened. I have provided thousands of hours of free labor, hundreds of free images, to a project which is democratic. If this is to turn into a contest of which company has the deepest pockets, then I feel utterly betrayed. Thoroughly sickened,  ⊂| Mr.choppers |⊃  (talk) 23:39, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

I think it is perfectly appropriate for members of the general public, including active Wikipedians, to contact companies who are funding inappropriate behavior at Wikipedia to let them know that it is not appreciated. I think such activity can and should result in public scandal for the perpetrators and I am happy to facilitate exposure of the facts in the media. Here in the UK, Member of Parliament Tom Watson has been working to expose problems in the media generally (he was a driving force in the hearings about the phone hacking scandal here) and with PR/lobbying firms attempting to undermine and subvert the basic principles of Wikipedia. I'm happy about that and think we need a lot more of it. Those who throw up their hands and say "Ah, there's a lot of this going on, so give up" are the people I want to reach with this message: we have the power to do something about this, so there is no need to despair. --Jimbo Wales (talk) 09:22, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Jimbo, as I replied to a user on my talk page, my opinion is that it is not ok to harrass a Wikipedian's employer. It is bigger than this one issue. If you let the line slip here, you'll enter a grey area where it is "OK in some situations" which will greatly discourage editors from contributing when they fear harrassment at the office. Contacting a company that does paid editing is one thing, but when it's just one person than we either need to enact a policy and block him or leave his employment alone. I, myself, have editing METC and several other Air Force articles. Should I fear someone is going to call my Commander about my Wikipedia editing? Don't let this be a grey area.--v/r - TP 13:56, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

I am proud of you for taking a firm stand in the face of prominent opposition. Harassment and pillorying is wrong. Encouraging mob rule is wrong and downright real-life dangerous. Publicly countermanding volunteer peace officers who try to establish order is bad leadership. You are absolutely correct that this is bigger than this one issue, and it takes people like you to stand up for what's right. Thank you. BsBsBs (talk) 08:45, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

I disagree. Sorry to have to throw a pan of water on such a warm and fuzzy lovefest amongst the "COI editor community", but the attempt to place this what Ebikeguy was done under the rubric of "harassment of an editor's employer" looks disingenuous at best. It conveniently disregards the discouraged, highly contentious, and problematic nature of hired/paid editing, and elides the corrosive effect thereof upon the basic precepts on which Wikipedia operates. It is a fatuous, circular piece of contrived PR spin aimed at keeping the necessary spotlight of scrutiny off bought-and-paid editors. This is not even vaguely close to one editor finding and publishing personal contact information of another or posting the fact that such-and-such an editor works at thus-and-such a company. It is more akin to bigots bleating about the intolerance of those who will not accept bigotry. —Scheinwerfermann ^T·_C09:22, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

I am not talking about the "COI Community." I am talking about acts of harassment and canvassing for real-life mass harassment against one Wikipedian. TParis was absolutely right to put a stop to this. People are free to THINK and SAY that WWB is a sinner or a prostitute. But they are not right to take direct off-wiki action against anyone for anything. We all have conflicts of interest, somewhere, somehow. Did you and I write about car parts and their regulations while you and I were in the car part business? Were these bad articles, just because we violated the amateur status and knew what we were talking about? Let he who is without sin, cast the first stone. BsBsBs (talk) 09:43, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Considering I am the editor whose contributions are under primarily under scrutiny here, I feel like I should weigh in. I'm in complete agreement that PR firms should not, as you say, be allowed to undermine and subvert the basic principles of Wikipedia. There are too many bad actors, like Bell Pottinger and surely many others, who operate anonymously, and with ignorance (or worse: contempt) for Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. But I think there are also good actors—as I try to be—and constructive interactions are possible. Specifically, I agree with your June 2009 comments on paid editing, and believe the fourth paragraph describes my approach very well.

Meanwhile, I'm afraid that issue has been conflated with my actions, and I'm concerned that my efforts have been misrepresented. For example, in the case of the e-mail address posted above, I have made zero direct edits to the Academy of Achievement article; I have only raised content issues on the Talk page. There are legitimate disagreements over, say, the content in Cracker Barrel's article. But it was a bad article before, and is a pretty good one now. It was certainly not a "whitewash" (although that term is AFAIK undefined here; cf. WP:WHITEWASH).

In a nutshell: When I come to an article that is relevant to a client, and I find material that is poorly written, under-developed, unsourced, or POV, I look for agreement between my client's goals and Wikipedia's, consistent with WP:COI. Where there is a difference, I always intend to put Wikipedia first (and yes, this means lots of telling clients "no"). What I do is prepare alternative language to address these problems, which I post in my user userspace, as if userfied. I then bring the issue to attention of uninvolved editors on that Talk page, perhaps also at a relevant WikiProject, and frequently at WP:COI/N. I always disclose my connection to the subject matter, accept feedback and work with volunteer editors to find consensus.

The thing about being a PR professional and Wikipedian: one can be both, and I am. I've spent a lot of time thinking about the two in relation to each other, I think I would be in a good position to help work out acceptable and unacceptable interactions between the groups. Jimmy, if there is any role I can play in doing so, I'd very much like to. Cheers, WWB Too (talk) 14:00, 5 January 2012 (UTC) (also User:WWB in non-COI contexts)

Jimbo- I understand the angry reaction to companies that pay for false or propogandistic information to be added to their own or competitor's pages, but is it always bad if someone is paid to put information in an article as long as they follow our policies and are neutral? Or even if they add ONLY good information, but the information is true (alot of editors like to only work on positive aspects leaving others to freely add negative without argument). I see problems if we restrict those whose jobs are propoganda-prone, for example do we restrict Don Rittner, whose current job is to promote Schenectady, New York as a filming venue for Hollywood productions? The Place Beyond the Pines with Ryan Gosling and Bradley Cooper for example is not only set in Schenectady but was filmed there instead of California thanks to Rittner. He gets paid to promote Schenectady, it's his job. Do we restrict him from editing articles? If so there goes the first ever official municipal archeaologist in the United States from editing Wikipedia. A stretch in my analogy between what is being considered to be banned and what Rittner does, perhaps. But where is the fine line, that "this" job is ok to have and continue to edit, but "that" job is crossing the line, even if you respect our policies. At what point do we say to someone we dont want you here because you get paid? At my business I have a marketing assistant manager in charge of internet marketing, whose job it is to go to Tripadvisor.com, Yelp.com, etc and respond to reviews, and etc. I would, within Wikipedia rules, encourage her to get our hotel mentioned in a Wikipedia article. Would we then be breaking the rules?Camelbinky (talk) 20:59, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Where's the rule?

Jimbo: I have a serious, honest question about your last comment in this thread. Let's say you or someone else does sit down and talk with these PR firms. What happens if there is a PR firm smart enough to read all of our rules looks who notices we don't have a single rule preventing someone from being paid for editing? Not one. No policy forbids it, no guideline restricts it, and the last community discussion we had on the issue ended up without any consensus forbidding paid editing. WP:COI (the closest thing) in fact, very explicitly allows people to edit when they have a conflict of interest, though it recommends extreme care and using the talk page rather than editing the article directly, but it doesn't actually forbid it. Won't it be very difficult to make a case when our own rules don't restrict the behavior? As I said the last time this flared up, if you want paid editing to be forbidden, please either get the Foundation to make a top-down rule overriding community consensus, or, as an editor, start another RfC and see if consensus has changed since the last time this was discussed at a community-wide venue. Qwyrxian (talk) 09:33, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Well said, Qwyrxian. This sham needs to stop. It is clear that there is not a single rule preventing someone from being paid for editing. However, this fact is swept under the carpet, and straw-man arguments are brought up by the minute, while civility falls by the wayside, and harassment is condoned. At least the Founder should know, but he engages in the same misleading campaign. He also - scary, scary - mentions it in the same breath as the UK phone hacking, which was clearly criminal. What is done here is spinmeistery of the first and crudest order. It goes to show that spin and flackery are not combated by keeping the paid ones out. The unpaid ones can fill the void just fine. You are right: Get a new rule handed down from Mt. Sinai, or start another RfC, or forever hold your peace. BsBsBs (talk) 13:48, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Here's the thing. BsBsBs is a paid editor. It's one thing (and bad enough) to influence articles for money. But BsBsBs (and other paid editors here) are participating in governance discussions for money. They're not doing it at the behest of a particular client (maybe; not sure what's billable) but they're doing it protect their livelihood. BsBsBs is not saying "This sham needs to stop" because he believes this. He's saying it to put food on his table. (He may also believe it but that's only human and is irrevelant.) The question is, should editors participate in governance discussions when the result affects their bottom line? If there's any sham that needs to stop it is that. Herostratus (talk) 17:29, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

My mistake. The editor had said "I stumbled across this discussion, because I am a paid editor", which I took in context as shorthand for "paid editor of Wikipedia", but in the very next sentence the editor said "I was never paid for editing WP", which I inexcusably didn't pick up on. I retract and apologize. Herostratus (talk) 19:31, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Ah, Herostratus, now it's getting interesting. So I am a paid editor? You know that for a fact? Could you please cite some reliable sources for it? Or are you just pulling it out of a dark place? Now normally I would ask you where I can collect my money. However, since "paid editor" is turned into a bad word here, and since I am running the risk of getting a big virtual "I AM A PAID EDITOR AND ALL-AROUD SWINE" sign hung around my neck, I must ask you to immediately furnish proof (cancelled checks, transfer slips, contracts, sworn affidavits) that prove that I edit WP for money. If you can't come up with that, then I demand a retraction. Today.BsBsBs (talk) 18:41, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

I retract and apologize, see above. I erred. Herostratus (talk) 19:32, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, case closed. BsBsBs (talk) 20:16, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it! (Upton Sinclair). The present state of un/regulation of bought-and-paid editing appears to date back to before commercial interests began to exploit Wikipedia as a promotional venue. Now they're entrenched, their hired mouthpieces will squawk and resist against anything that threatens their parasitic little ecosystem, and they will naturally couch their squawks in terms of the letter of Wikipedia's policies, knowing fully well they're violating its spirit. The Möbius strip of an argument that exposing this kind of parasitic exploitation is against Wikipedia rules looks to me like an early example; things are likely to get much nastier if allowed to continue without some top-down regulation. Those are hypocrites who say banning or strictly regulating bought-and-paid editing will be useless because it'll only be driven underground but aren't in favour of abolishing laws against larceny, rape, murder, fraud, and red-light running on the same those-laws-only-drive-those-activities-underground basis. —Scheinwerfermann ^T·_C18:23, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Talk about attacking soapbox - "parasitic little ecosystem" - I have never heard so much extreme opinionated commentary as comments like this ever at wikipedia. - Youreallycan (talk) 20:26, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

WP:SPADE. —Scheinwerfermann ^T·_C07:57, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

I have reached out to Stacey Ferguson, a digital media attorney with the FTC, asking them to make a stand on bad faith, anonymous COI edits. From my understanding as a communications professional, it's against the law for a commercial interest to post "company endorsements" online while impersonating a disinterested party like a volunteer contributor. When I see threats of negative media coverage, I think "that's all you got"? Come back when you have a million dollar settlement. This isn't just against Wikipedia policy, it's against the law. I would like to urge the community to report anonymous bad faith edits to the FTC and I would petition Jimmy Wales to see if he can get the FTC to secure media coverage that involves a lawsuit and financial loss to companies editing Wikipedia unethically rather than threats of the very controversy many companies actively pursue for attention.

That doesn't apply to WBtoo, because he disclosed. While there are FAR more problematic COI editors out there than WBtoo, I disagree that he hasn't violated Wikipedia policies because there are none for paid editing. It sounds like it could be argued that he's violated rules about exercising ownership over articles, engaging in editing wars, disrupting the community process, trying to block controversy as a COI editor, spamming Talk pages, a strange form of sockpuppetry using his colleague to back him up and behavioral problems that fall under "don't stick jelly beans up your nose." I understand the Wikipedia community hates us COI editors, because - as a group - we've earned it. But people are getting better and I'm confident that many COI participants who have the motivation, resources and expertise to contribute can actually make Wikipedia better. They COULD though unfortunately - in general - today they do not.

Right now I'm reading a 100+ page book that is no longer published and is probably one of the last copies in existence. It's also filled with over 100 years of history spanning World War II, landmark films, the first furnaces and other historical information. If I did not have a sponsor, this historical, encyclopedic information would not only never make it to Wikipedia, it could be lost forever. If only WBToo recognized he made a mistake and apologized early, maybe this wouldn't be such a big string. Isn't that really the issue more so than the content itself? He's hardly the poster-boy for this kind of conversation compared to Pottinger and others. Even as a COI editor, I would like to see inappropriate COI edits better identified and punished.King4057 (talk) 03:25, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

David: If you have any evidence that I am exercising ownership over articles, engaging in editing wars, disrupting the community process, trying to block controversy as a COI editor, spamming Talk pages, a strange form of sockpuppetry using his colleague to back him up, please explain what you mean or speedily retract your accusations. Not only have I not violated WP:OWN, WP:EDITWAR, WP:CANVASS, or WP:SOCK (although I think what you mean is WP:MEAT) I believe I have been very cautious in my statements and actions throughout this process. I am not even sure what you think I should be apologizing about, or to whom. If you have specific criticisms of my behavior, perhaps you would be willing to bring them up on my discussion page, where I would be happy to address any concerns. Thanks, WWB Too (talk) 00:43, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

@David4057 - Reaching out - punished - you urge the community to contact harry and john and you have only one singe minor content addition to wikipedia - Thanks a lot David4057 - this place gets worse - thanks for the soapboxing POV. Youreallycan (talk) 00:49, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

I chose my words carefully, "it could be argued" knowing that I have only reviewed the comments here and not looked at the edits themselves, which appears as though they might span multiple editors making comments under your influence. Editors have accused you of keeping articles "just the way you like it" in this string. If the appropriate board determined that that was indeed true, it seems to me that it would count as exercising excessive control over the article. I saw one person on the Talk page link to 8 comments from you on his Talk page within just a few days, which is inappropriate. And it appears as though you may have a habit of soliciting a posse of friendly editors to contribute to the Talk page on your behalf.

Going around accusing everyone of soapboxing, if you are a fellow COI editor that works with William, isn't appropriate either. We should be conducting ourselves as professionals, diplomats, historians...

The Wikipedia community has done this plenty of times. Report him to a board, list your accusations, allow neutral, experienced editors determine if they are true and if any punishment is appropriate. I'm not saying they are or aren't but there are some accusations here that warrant investigation. William, if you want me to I will actually dig into all of this and present a neutral case to the COI noticeboard, but I don't understand why you would want to coax me into investigating your alleged violations in detail. I'm not even really interested in WBToo's case, except that his aggressive behavior is creating even more animosity against COI editors. The very animosity I would like to soothe by showing paid editors can be guardians of ethics for positive, ethical COI contributions. King4057 (talk) 04:22, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

I agree that if one took some comments in the threads above at face value, that conclusion would not be implausible. Yet I am quite certain that they are wrong and, while this debate is already way tl;dr, I'm quite certain that any full review would find I've acted reasonably all along. Difficult as this process has been, I've sought to address disagreements in an amicable and constructive manner—much different than, say, Herostratus' sarcastic rant on my Talk page the other day.

Meanwhile, I am certain I have not left eight comments on any one editor's Talk page in the last few weeks, let alone one day (even this one). If someone says otherwise, please provide diffs. And there are obviously some editors who agree with me, but none of them are colleagues, and truth is you know me better than I know them.

This is a contentious topic, which is exactly why I have endeavored to conduct myself in a professional manner—as you say, to soothe pre-existing animosities against paid editors. I'm sorry to say that animosity explains the existence of this discussion, not my approach to editor interactions. I hope you can see that. Best, WWB Too (talk) 05:52, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

I think the conversation has already moved on to something much broader than your edits in particular and I never intended to divert this string back to the original topic. This string is called "where's the rule" and is on the subject of a lack of paid editing policies. My point is that there are policies that cover paid editors and can be used for the alleged violations. Lets leave it at that. This is not the appropriate string nor am I the best person to determine any wrongdoing. Nor do I really care enough to divert the conversation to that subject. The fact that this is on Jimbo's page rather than a COI noticeboard, I'm not sure how much of it is about resolving your situation as starting a conversation. I will note/clarify that someone engaged in editing wars and started this whole drama, but I haven't investigated which edits were yours or what your relationship is with other editors. There's certainly been a lot of behavior that's aggravated this. King4057 (talk) 06:19, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

My reply is actually in response to the previous version of your comment, but: Fair enough. It's true that the discussion on this page has broadened, and I agree this is not the place to get into the specifics of my case. It's my plan to bring specific content and policy issues back to those pages in the coming week. Cheers, WWB Too (talk) 06:44, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

• Apologies for too much focus on User:WWB: The above discussion concerning User:WWB (aka User:WWB_Too) was just as one of the latest users to write based on paid self-interest. We have had other editors who uploaded photos of their artwork to Commons, with rough descriptions, and had bots polish their photo pages with professional-looking infoboxes, where those photos were illustrations in a self-written vanity page (now deleted), but other editors improved the text to give the impression of multi-editor approval for notability or COI writing. There are numerous policies which paid-editors must also follow, so that is the basic issue, and unfortunately, a great many editors violate some of the policies simply because there are so many policy pages, not because numerous editors are evil. I apologize if User:WWB was seen as being insulted, rather than someone who was on the edge of violating many policies, such as WP:NPOV neutrality of content, WP:LEDE summaries of major controversies, WP:NOTABILITY of not mentioning typical restaurant menus, WP:NPOV_dispute to leave tags until consensus, or WP:VOTESTACKING to avoid notifying only known debate supporters. The worry has also included WP:Puffery, and I am sorry if people viewed User:WWB as a quote "bad person" rather than as someone trending outside the policy limits, as many other editors have done. -Wikid77 (talk) 08:38, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Well said King4057 (talk) 17:00, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Well, look

Well until the Foundation comes to its senses let's not just spin our wheels here. Let's make an organized effort to look at ways we can address this. Here's a draft:

• User:Herostratus/Wikiproject Paid Editing Watch

This is a draft; I ask all like-minded editors to take a look, join up if you have the time, and let's see what can be done. Herostratus (talk) 21:00, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Why can't you try encouraging covert paid editers to be overt paid editors so they can be monitored?--v/r - TP 23:01, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

OK. Suggestions on how that might be accomplished are welcome. Herostratus (talk) 00:33, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't think that paid editors really belong here in any form or shape. If someone is getting paid to edit and it becomes clear that such is the case, then ban them. If someone is paid to edit articles and no one can tell that such is the case, then no problem. Let's call it "don't ask don't tell" (wink). WWB Too is the first paid editor I have encountered here, and he makes me profoundly uncomfortable. Uncomfortable to the point where I am beginning to second-guess my commitment of thousands of hours to the project. I am aware that saying "if I don't get my way then I'm leaving" is hardly a productive argument online, but I would argue that the licenses to all of the pictures I have uploaded are invalid if this is to become a for-hire "encyclopedia". While WWB Too's livelihood may be under threat, my leisure time/volunteer effort is cpnversely being threatened.  ⊂| Mr.choppers |⊃  (talk) 07:50, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Problem with anonymous IP editor on Kobe Bryant sexual assault case article

Happy New Year, Jimmy. I hope my past mistakes do not preclude my asking you for advice on a troublesome matter. I'm having some difficulty with a problem IP editor with a history being blocked for edit warring, and who seems to have difficulty following WP:AGF and other guidelines, in regards to his insistence on adding the name of the woman who accused Kobe Bryant of rape some years ago to the Kobe Bryant sexual assault case article. I'll try to summarize in five succinct questions:

1. BLP policy clearly states that Caution should be applied when identifying individuals who are discussed primarily in terms of a single event. When the name of a private individual has not been widely disseminated or has been intentionally concealed, such as in certain court cases or occupations, it is often preferable to omit it, especially when doing so does not result in a significant loss of context. This description would seem to fit the name of Bryant's accuser quite clearly. Because of this, and other arguments brought up during the discussion on that article's talk page, as well as other precedents such as Star Wars Kid, which omits the name of that subject's name even though it appears in sources that are cited in that article, I removed the accuser's name from both the article and the talk page. Was I correct to do so? The other editor, 70.245.209.94, argues that the article talk page discussion shows only five people in favor of omitting her name, and eleven against it. Now putting aside the fact that I count it as four to six, and not five to eleven, and that this is a problematic endeavour when some editors participate from anonymous IPs (which could allow single editors to chime under different ones), my understanding is that while we do build consensus, editorial decisions are ultimately not based on voting, particularly when policy is clear. Am I correct in concluding this?

2. Editor 70.245.209.94 takes issue with the phrase "widely disseminated" by arguing that her name has appeared in The New York Times. Now I apologize to have to ask you this, since I think this is obvious, but since he insists on splitting this hair, I want to make sure that you agree with my response: My understanding of the phrase "widely disseminated" means that her name is mentioned commonly, across many news publications, particularly reputable ones, to the point where her name becomes a household name, at least at the time that the case first made news, and not that it is merely reported in one publication, even a widely read one like the The New York Times, since that would mean that "wide dissemination" essentially has the same meaning as or criteria as the Verifiability Policy. Am I right here?

Nightscream (whom, full disclosure, I am acquainted with in real life through our common participation in Wikimedia-NYC events) has asked me for opinions on his questions 2–5 here, since no one else seems to him (or me) to be addressing them.

Here, no, I don't think that publication in a single outlet, even one with the stature of The New York Times (probably one of our most frequently cited sources), counts as "widely disseminated". Daniel Case (talk) 17:47, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

3. Editor 70.245.209.94 continues to include the name of Kobe Bryant's accuser on the article talk page, and the IP talk page. If you summarily agree with the above that removing her name is necessary, then is it a blockable offense for someone to continue mentioning her name on the talk page in new talk page messages? And if it's not so clear-cut, would that mean that it's okay to mention it?

I think we're entitled to some latitude on a talk page discussion while the issue is being resolved (much as we allow the temporary use of a fair-use image there if it is relevant to a discussion, while that discussion is taking place). Daniel Case (talk) 17:47, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

4. Editor 70.245.209.94 repeatedly violates WP:AGF by accusing me of harboring a bias against Bryant, that arguing that omitting the accuser's name implies guilt on Bryant's part (even though it's common for reputable news organizations to omit the names of alleged rape victims). Although he continued to do this during his block, I decided not to extend the block or ask another admin to do so because I hoped that I could show him how assuming intent on the part of someone, without eliminating other possible motives, is an ad hominem logical fallacy. He responds that "ad hominem is not a logical fallacy if it is to establish bias". My efforts are probably futile, so I need to ask, if an editor continues to violate AGF with repeated accusations, is this a blockable offense?

Yes, especially with a response like that indicating an appeal to logic would be completely lost on the respondent. However, get someone else to make the block. Daniel Case (talk) 17:47, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

5. I know that talk page etiquette allows editors to respond to other editors' messages by placing responses to certain passages in the middle of the first speaker's message-- that is, responding to a sentence or comment directly after it. I dislike this practice, as it appears to mutilate my messages, and makes it difficult to discern the authorship of the individual messages at a glance. When this happens, I tend to remove the responding editor's responses and place them after my initial message. Is this acceptable? Shouldn't the initial editor have some say in that? If so, and editor 70.245.209.94 continues to mutilate my messages, is that a blockable offense? Nightscream (talk) 04:59, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

My interpretation of this practice is that it's easier to interpolate responses between paragraphs where there's naturally space. If I want to fisk someone's response, I put it in quotes and italics within my own grafs. At the very least, if you do this, Nightscream, I'd put in a note of some kind noting the refactoring. Daniel Case (talk) 17:47, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

The name should be included; a long paragraph going on about the accuser's admission to "lying" when neither her handwritten letter nor the paragraph blurb introducing it in thesmokinggun.com puts it that way (the two sources), not so much. I made an edit to that, but the rest of the article could bear checking. Wnt (talk) 16:27, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

No, the accuser's name should not be included - she's a clear BLP 'one notable event' case - and I have to admit that that article is doing a fine end-run around BLP by basically listing off everyone the accuser knows: Poor woman's going to have to move to a new town because everyone who reads wilkipedia will know intimate details of her personal life. This is not a scandal-rag, this is an encyclopedia. stick to the facts of the case. --Ludwigs2 16:48, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

WP:BLP1E is the threshold for creating an article about her, not the threshold for naming her. "Avoiding victimization" in BLP is a statement about pulling names out of primary court transcripts or the like. Once there's a body of published work about a person, including them becomes a relevant detail for an article. Wnt (talk) 16:57, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

WNT, the spirit of BLP is that we are an encyclopedia, not a scandal rag. We avoid unnecessary defamatory or embarrassing material except where it's necessary to describe some notable event. This woman is not notable in her own right, and is only notable because she accused someone famous of assaulting her sexually. We do not need detailed information about the woman herself (her life, her character, her name) because the woman is not significant to the article. The only reason to talk about her at all would be to try to argue Kobe's side of the case; but he had lawyers to do that, Wikipedia doesn't need to.

All this article needs to say is that Kobe (the notable individual) was accused of the crime but the charges were dropped because the accuser refused to testify; maybe present some of the surrounding analysis of the media frenzy surrounding the case. trying to drag the woman into it is irresponsible and unencyclopedic. --Ludwigs2 18:15, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

You're justifying your position with an inexcusable lack of imagination. Certainly I can think of a reason why we'd want to know her name - to know what happened to her. Was she hounded to her grave by Kobe fanatics? Did she take the undisclosed settlement and retire happily to a private island? Or is the truth somewhere between? Now that she's a public figure we have a right to ask such questions - we have a right to ask how damaging the sort of character assassination that came up at the trial really is, how damaging the prospect of lawsuits over alleged rapes is, and to use such information to inform our opinions about public policy and whether the rules of evidence in rape trials should be changed. Wnt (talk) 02:41, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Since we seem to be discussing only Point #1 from my original message at the top, and not Points 2 - 5, can we move this over to that article's talk page? I've responded to Wnt's most recent post above there. Nightscream (talk) 04:27, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

In the context of a male-dominated world, in which there is a stigma (or even deadly sanctions) attached to being a rape victim, we may need to actually create a policy. Balanced against the (Western) right of the accused to "confront their accuser" is also a woman's right to have a private life. It is not for Wikipedia to out LGBT's nor rape victims, is it?

Some contributors have been trying to conceal the facts about blaming the victim and honor killings. It's bad enough to get raped; let's not pile on. --Uncle Ed (talk) 22:18, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia has a policy WP:BLP#Avoid victimization; the point is, it prohibits outing rape victims from obscure filings, as opposed to naming people who have 55 pages of results on Google about the case already. Wnt (talk) 13:41, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Again, can we please restrict this portion of the discussion to the article talk page (where a discussion on this has been ongoing since December 9), so that we don't have it in two different places???? Nightscream (talk) 22:48, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

<sigh…> I sometimes think Wikipedia is where people come when they want to publish stuff that even supermarket tabloids won't touch. Some editors just don't get the whole 'encyclopedia' concept. We're not here to dig into people personal lives; we're here to report information that might credibly have import and meaning as general knowledge. The whole Bryant rape case barely qualifies. it's mere 'society column' trivia: i.e people gabbing on about the things 'quality' people do, as they have always gabbed and always will gab - the same stories repeated with an endless supply of different names and faces. I accept that this kind of thing is unavoidable to a certain extent (because we are social monkeys who can't help grunting with excitement over this kind of crap), but we really need to do something to reign it in, because there are many, many people in the world who get absolutely obsessed with ferreting out every gritty detail of people's private lives, given any trivial excuse to do so. it's all just… unseemly. Twenty years from now no one (except the the odd 'sports guy') is going to remember Kobe Bryant - he'll be a statistic in a few books, and maybe one of those goofy late night product-promo guys - and under normal circumstances no one would remember this rape allegation or the woman involved in it at all. So why are we giving this bit of social trivia a memory-life it would never have achieved on it's own? --Ludwigs2 23:27, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

As I mentioned on the article, a TV station (and many other sources) just mentioned her name again recently.^[1] People running web searches on events 30 years ago today get many fewer results than they will in 30 years. I should say, I am actually quite disgusted with the way that the accuser has been treated, with her sexual and psychiatric history showcased to the media. But those are the facts, and if Wikipedia is going to cover this at all, it should cover the situation in proper detail. It has public policy implications for all the women in similar situations. We can't erase what is written on the Internet, but we can weigh it carefully and produce a more balanced, careful, and useful summary than any competing source of information. (or the article at present...) If we allow ourselves to do so. Wnt (talk) 01:42, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Wnt: my point is that an encyclopedia is not concerned with information that is of no credible practical value outside of its immediate circumstance. Newspapers have to cover 'current events', yes, and so newspapers are going to cover material like this. And yes it will be stored in their archives for anyone who wants to look it up. But 'stored in the archives' of a newspaper that moves incessantly onward to the next interesting bit of social trivia is a far cry from 'established as a matter of significant fact' in an encyclopedia. 100 years from now people are still going to want information about the theory of gravity and Sigmund Freud; these have passed the test of time. Are you suggesting that 100 years from now people will care a fig about some woman who accused some (by then) ancient basketball player of sexual assault? No. There will be plenty of athletes having sex with plenty of people in that time frame for them to gossip about. The thought of a (by then) 120+ year old Kobe having sex with anyone will do nothing except disgust them.

You have to look at the bigger picture here: an encyclopedia isn't about every little 'sexy' tidbit of information that comes down the pike. An encyclopedia is about knowledge that ostensibly lasts - stuff that will be meaningful to people long after the people involved are dead and buried. I know that Wikipedia is young and the internet travels at the speed of rumor, so it's hard to remember that we are writing for the long term, but still... You'll do a lot better to edit the feminism article than this silly article about a sexual assault case if you're worried about public policy implications. And while I trust your intentions (I've seen enough of you to know that you're both honest and self-aware), don't kid yourself that most of the people wanting to add this woman's name are interested in 'public policy': most are either trying to defend Kobe's honor (out of a misguided sense of hero-worship), or simply following that monkey-urge to know more-and-more-and-more about something scandalous. That's not the kind of thing that an encyclopedia ought to be interested in. --Ludwigs2 07:02, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

The bigger picture here is that we, as a society, have to decide whether the rules of evidence in the courtroom allow a woman's prior sexual and psychiatric history to be brought in when she alleges rape. In other words, if a woman has been subjected to psychiatric hospitalization or other treatment, does this mean she is Fair Game for the rest of her life? This one of the highest profile date rape cases in the past two decades - one way or another, it has shaped public opinion. Those seriously seeking to understand the laws and responses of this society to rape will want to understand what happened in this case, even decades in the future. Wnt (talk) 19:47, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Did the case set any new legal precedents ? No. Did it go to trial, No. Was an out of court settlement agreed between the celebrity and the complainant, Yes. - this is all standard stuff. There is nothing in the case details that supports your opinion that, " Those seriously seeking to understand the laws and responses of this society to rape will want to understand what happened in this case, even decades in the future" - talk about over egging the pudding. We appear imo to be 'over reporting' this issue considering it from a long-term, historical view. Youreallycan (talk) 20:01, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

IRC

I have just been informed that the freenode IRC channels that freenode believes are owned by wikimedia are not actually projects of wikimedia, but rather of some unappointed self-sustaining "group contacts." Is that correct? Why are these "group contacts" permitted to use the registered marks wikimedia/wikipedia? Hipocrite (talk) 13:59, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't have a clear picture into this situation. But rather than "going meta" about it, can you tell me what specific thing you think should be changed? What I mean is, there is a complicated question of who is in charge of the Wikimedia IRC channels. I am 100% sure that the people at Freenode will do whatever I or the Foundation ask them to do, so there's no possibility of a power struggle or crisis from that angle. But I also see no real reason to go that route unless there is some kind of specific plan of action that the community agrees is likely to improve IRC in some material way.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 14:37, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

I want wikipedia-en and wikipedia-en-admins logged. I want the wikipeda-en log available for public perusal. I want the en-admins log available on demand to any admin. Hipocrite (talk) 14:53, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

I have been threatened with an on-wiki block for publishing any logs on-wiki. See [2]. I intend to file an Arbcom case regarding this abuse of administrative authority. Hipocrite (talk) 15:23, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

I recommend against that. It's been longstanding policy. I'm not averse to a change, but simply breaking policy isn't very helpful.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 15:41, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't intend to post logs to get blocked - that's a violation of WP:POINT. However, there's no way to have the "policy," (which dosen't exist in any form, except from said "group contacts") discussed by the community. Hipocrite (talk) 15:45, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

As demonstrated - I attempted to start an RFC on changing our page regarding IRC, and the very first response was that because the so called "group contacts," say no logging, any publishing of a log would be copyvio. Hipocrite (talk) 16:47, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Which policy says that you can't post IRC logs on Wikipedia? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 16:55, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

The one where two admins said they would block me if I did. Hipocrite (talk) 16:57, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

I have now been kicked out of IRC as a result of the discussion in question. Hipocrite (talk) 16:58, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

My IRC spy (I remain banned) now informs me that I am the topic of discussion in the public channel (which I don't have access to, as I've been banned). Apparently one "Fluffernutter" has called me "very angry," one "Barkingfish" has stated that I am "pro-everyone who is theoretically in the wrong." You see nothing wrong here, Mr. Wales? Hipocrite (talk) 17:50, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

"Barkingfish" has now reportedly called me a "unscrupulous little twat who likes to rule break." This was humorous to one "Fluffernutter." Hipocrite (talk) 17:52, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

And has now, apparently, threatened bodily harm upon me. Hipocrite (talk) 17:54, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't know if it would be productive or advisable, but assuming that Fluffernutter is User:Fluffernutter, a en-Wiki administrator, oversighter and an online ambassador, you might want to raise this issue on his/her talk page.Volunteer Marek (talk) 17:58, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Whoever your IRC spy is, Hipocrite, they are not only completely wrong, they are misinforming you. I made the first comment you mention, about being pro-everyone who is theoretically in the wrong, which is based on the arbcom Civility enforcement evidence where you only seem to want the admins dealing with and nothing else. The other two statements you attribute as being directed at you, were not. They were generalised - the first being "If I find someone is publicly logging this channel and feeding it to other users, there's gonna be hell. I don't use channels which publicly log. What I say in here is meant to stay in here, not be sent to unscrupulous little twats who like to rule break." - and the second wasn't directed at you either - people in that channel know I have a very short temper, and the second comment was "you know I get pissed easily - it's second nature. I'm all like "fuck with me once, no problem. fuck with me twice, have lunch through a straw for a month >>>:(" - You will note that the one your IRC SPY claims was threatening bodily harm on you, wasn't - and the first comment was generalised. When a channel says NO PUBLIC LOGGING - it means it. I suggest you find a better IRC spy, Hipocrite, yours is clearly leading you astray.  BarkingFish  18:25, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

I suggest further points are raised at Wikipedia_talk:IRC where there has been an active discussion of the topic, rather than this user page, where if any good points are made they will probably be lost in the ether of archives or need repeating all over again. Thanks Fæ (talk) 17:00, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I can't do that. It's not clear that the community has any authority over IRC - while it is clear that if Jimbo told freenode to give him the channel (as he rightly points out), they would. As such, I don't know how to solve the problem without him. Hipocrite (talk) 17:02, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

PeterSymonds doesn't cite a policy.[3] A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:01, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Might makes right, dosen't it? Hipocrite (talk) 17:02, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

(Hipocrite) As several channel ops have posted at Wikipedia_talk:IRC, it seems an entirely appropriate forum. I would expect that Jimbo will check it over if the various discussions reach any conclusion, or indeed ask for him to get more involved on supporting a policy amendment if it is needed (which as it happens, I also think needs improvement in this area, one way or the other). Thanks --Fæ (talk) 17:09, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

I'll wait for him to say that - thanks. Hipocrite (talk) 17:10, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Okay, in the meantime you may want get on with filing that Arbcom case, as Jimbo has already encouraged you to do. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 17:13, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

No, he said, and I quote "I recommend against that." He has given no positive solution as to how to go about changing the problem over the objection of the entrenched (another one showed up) "Group Contacts." Hipocrite (talk) 17:15, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Oh thanks, weird I read that the wrong way around. I still think you would make more progress by looking carefully at the arguments put forward at the IRC discussion page and engaging there. The contributors know quite a bit about policy and the technicalities. --Fæ (talk) 17:23, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

It's very clear what the IRC admins who are talking there are saying - they have been saying it for years - Jimbo and the WMF don't own the channels, you can't mess with our playground. Do you see anything different? Hipocrite (talk) 17:32, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

I have to confess to some confusion and lack of knowledge of the specific Wikipedia policies here. I don't use IRC very often and haven't dealt with an IRC dispute in several years. I think there are some general principles that are not in dispute, though. (1) The channels have always been considered "us" in the sense of "part of the Wikipedia project" as opposed to being just out there somewhere. That is to say, even Freenode has always seen it that these are channels which are for the use of the Wikimedia Foundation for our projects, as opposed to just random channels unto themselves. So this isn't like a random group of users congregating on, let's say, tumblr or twitter. These are tools that have traditionally been "internal" to our community. (2) Policy about what one is or is not allowed to post on-wiki is up to this community, not up to channel operators. Having said that, there's almost never a reason for being too dramatic about things, and so a change in policy can and should happen in the usual ways.

Finally, from BarkingFish's description up above, I'm not 100% sure who said this: "fuck with me once, no problem. fuck with me twice, have lunch through a straw for a month". All I can say is that such violent and hostile language is wildly inappropriate for Wikipedia, and whoever did say it ought to take a one week or one month wikibreak to chill out a bit. That's just outrageous. We are here as a charitable community working together to give a free encyclopedia to the world. Language like that is just not acceptable under any circumstances. If that's what IRC has descended to, then I do hope we will re-evaluate the management of the channels.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 22:06, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

That quote was written by BarkingFish. That is what IRC has descended to - that quote was laughed at by the IRC admin who banned me from the channel for merely logging. The channel admins do not consider the channels part of "us." Hipocrite (talk) 22:16, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

I see that I am now guilty by association. I would appreciate if "what IRC has descended to" were not generalized to the actions of 2 or 3 individuals. I'm a #wikipedia-en op myself, and I'm pretty sure I've never said anything like that to you, or for that matter, anyone. In fact, I don't think I've ever spoken to or about you in particular at all. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 23:31, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Having just now read the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:IRC, I have to say that in general, I disagree with Hipocrite on the content issues, but also disagree with some of the "constitutional" claims being made there. I think it would be much healthier all around if we made much more clear that these are official channels of the community, not just some random 'other' place. I doubt very much if any real policies would change, but what would improve would be the democratic/consensus authority of the channel operators / group contacts there. Rather than operating under the rather tenuous "the Foundation didn't appoint us and no one has any authority over us but we'll do the right thing," which carries with it significant risks of loss of credibility in the face of genuine problems, it would be much better if the situation were "we are here on the authority of the community based on this RfC and our policies are open to a consensus change process that is clearly defined".

Part of what Hipocrite is upset about here is the seemingly arbitrary authority of the group contacts. If we could clearly point him to on-wiki policy that explains how their positions are validated and accepted by the community, that'd be helpful.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 22:19, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Jimbo, that comment you refer to was written by me, but wasn't in reference just to Wikipedia, that is a more accurate description of how I am in real life. I used to be pleasant, but people took so much advantage of my being pleasant that I wound up being a cynical, sourfaced old git. That's just how I am, not only here, but pretty much everywhere, in the real world, on the net, wherever. That isn't what IRC has descended to - that's me, being my usual moaning old self. That other people laughed at it is not my problem, and it's not in reference to Hipocrite, which he thought it was from his IRC spy. I can understand Hipocrite is annoyed by what he's been told, but you shouldn't take every bit of BS at face value just because someone tells you "that's the way it is."  BarkingFish  22:24, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

I believe the two issues of "should IRC be publicly logged?" and "Avoid emotive speech" (per Freenode guidelines) are being unnecessarily conflated. There is an obvious groundswell of opinion that public logging is not a good answer. It is also true that there is a serious problem on channels such as #wikipedia-en that highly inappropriate swearing and sexual language is commonly used, even by otherwise well respected Wikimedians (it has certainly been bad enough for me to leave the channel for that reason and say so). If we want a sensible discussion of these topics, I suggest they are kept separate. I also believe that Wikipedia_talk:IRC is probably the best place to discuss these issues until someone creates a specific area to do so. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 22:56, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

I would prefer to carry on at a centralised point, Fæ, but since the issue regarding me was raised here, I feel it best to continue it here. No sense in splitting one conversation into more than one place :)  BarkingFish  23:04, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

While I agree with Fæ that two distinct issues are getting conflated, I would take any decisions reached on Wikipedia_talk:IRC as reflecting only a self-selected portion of the community, namely those who frequent IRC. It is clear they are opposed to logging, but this is unlikely to represent what the rest of the community wants or expects. I suggest broadening this discussion, rather than trying to drive it back to what some might call "an echo chamber". Perhaps it is time for site-wide RfCs on ownership, logging, and conduct? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 00:07, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Also, I don't think the problem that some people have is that "highly inappropriate swearing and sexual language is commonly used". At least that's not the gist of the issue - though the kind of hostile language that is sometimes used (and it really doesn't have much to do with swearing or sexual language, but rather the unabashed hostility), exemplified in the quoted comment above, IS ANOTHER issue. But it's a corollary, not the main lemma. Basically I think people are concerned that all kinds of hi-jinks, smearings and illicit coordination goes on there.VolunteerMarek 00:16, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

By " hi-jinks, smearings and illicit coordination " you seem to be quite accurately referring to another off-wiki haunt of some of the names I recognize in this thread and who are well documented as indulging in such practices. Fæ (talk) 00:24, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Marek, as I have explained, the "unabashed" hostility is not mainly to do with WP, it's more to do with me than anything else - the description I posted is how I generally am in life. If you read the piece I posted a couple of lines up, where I replied to Jimbo, you'll see that.  BarkingFish  00:26, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Is that an oblique reference to Wikipedia Review, where Mike Godwin is now a contributing member? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 20:08, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

You have mail, Jimbo

So I don't template the regulars, just a polite note to let you know that you have mail, Sir.  BarkingFish  23:22, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

In the middle of a conversation about being open, where you claim that you don't need to be monitored because people should just trust you, you send private correspondence to an individual who, by default, stands in a position of judgement. Do you have *any* self awareness at all?101.118.55.52 (talk) 23:40, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

I have plenty of self awareness thanks. It is my prerogative to send email to anyone I wish, and what I discuss out there is between myself and Jimbo and nobody else. So I'd appreciate you not enquiring as to this any further. I've said my piece here, and I've said what I wish to say to Jimbo directly. Thank you.  BarkingFish  23:50, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your email. As to the anon, geez, chill out. As BarkingFish can confirm if he wants, we're having a perfectly pleasant email exchange. It's perfectly ok for people to email me about whatever is on their minds.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 02:02, 7 January 2012 (UTC)