Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 20:50, 17 September 2014

Jimbo welcomes your comments and updates. He holds the founder's seat on the Wikimedia Foundation's Board of Trustees. The three trustees elected as community representatives until July 2015 are SJ, Phoebe, and Raystorm. The Wikimedia Foundation Senior Community Advocate is Maggie Dennis.

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

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed

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

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

Archives

Index –index– October 28, 2001 – April 12, 2004 April 16, 2004 – August 23, 2004 August 28, 2004 – December 8, 2004 December 9, 2004 – March 23, 2005 March 23, 2005 – July 24, 2005 July 26, 2005 – September 9, 2005 September 9, 2005 – September 24, 2005 September – December 2005 January 2006 January – February 2006 February 2006 February 2006, cont. March 2006 April 2006 – late May 2006 May 24 – July 2006 July 2006 – August 2006 August 2006 Most of September 2006 Late September 2006 – Early November 2006 Most of November 2006 Late November 2006 – December 8, 2006 December 9, 2006 – Mid January 2007 From December 22, 2006 blanking Mid January 2007 – Mid February 2007 Mid February 2007– Feb 25, 2007 From March 2, 2007 blanking March 2–5, 2007 March 5–11, 2007 March 11 – April 3, 2007 April 2 – May 2, 2007 May 3 – June 7, 2007 June 9 – July 4, 2007 July 13 – August 17, 2007 August 17 – September 11, 2007 September 14 – October 7, 2007 October 28 – December 1, 2007 December 2 – December 16, 2007 December 15 – January 4, 2008 January 4 – January 30, 2008 January 30 – February 28, 2008 February 28 – March 11, 2008 March 9 – April 18, 2008 April 18 – May 30, 2008 May 30 – July 27, 2008 July 26 – October 4, 2008 October 4 – November 12, 2008 November 10 – December 10, 2008 December 5 – December 25, 2008 December 25 – January 16, 2009 January 15 – January 27, 2009 January 26 – February 10, 2009 February 8 – March 18, 2009 March 18 – May 6, 2009 May 5 – June 9, 2009 June 10 – July 11, 2009 July 12 – August 25, 2009 August 26 – October 3, 2009 October 4 – November 20, 2009 November 20 – December 21, 2009 December 22, 2009 – January 25, 2010 January 22, 2010 – February 22, 2010 February 22, 2010 – March 17, 2010 March 17, 2010 – April 9, 2010 April 11, 2010 – April 24, 2010 April 23, 2010 – May 12, 2010 May 10, 2010 – June 4, 2010 June 4, 2010 – June 26, 2010 June 26, 2010 – July 22, 2010 July 22, 2010 – August 23, 2010 August 4, 2010 – August 28, 2010 August 28, 2010 – September 14, 2010 September 13, 2010 – October 6, 2010 October 6, 2010 – November 8, 2010 November 8, 2010 – November 21, 2010 November 21, 2010 – December 6, 2010 December 6, 2010 – December 22, 2010 December 21, 2010 – January 17, 2011 January 16, 2011 – February 10, 2011 February 6, 2011 – March 19, 2011 March 16, 2011 – March 26, 2011 March 26, 2011 – April 22, 2011 April 22, 2011 – May 16, 2011 May 17, 2011 – June 9, 2011 June 10, 2011 – July 1, 2011 July 1, 2011 – July 15, 2011 July 16, 2011 – July 26, 2011 July 26, 2011 – August 15, 2011 August 14, 2011 – August 23, 2011 August 21, 2011 – August 31, 2011 August 30, 2011 – September 7, 2011 September 4, 2011 – September 25, 2011 September 26, 2011 – October 19, 2011 October 16, 2011 – November 5, 2011 November 4, 2011 – November 12, 2011 November 11, 2011 – November 24, 2011 November 24, 2011 – December 6, 2011 December 3, 2011 – December 14, 2011 December 10, 2011 – December 16, 2011 (RFC about the Stop Online Piracy Act) December 15, 2011 – December 30, 2011 December 27, 2011 – January 9, 2012 January 9, 2012 – January 18, 2012 January 17, 2012 – January 30, 2012 January 28, 2012 – February 12, 2012 February 7, 2012 – February 25, 2012 February 19, 2012 – March 4, 2012 February 27, 2012 – March 18, 2012 March 17, 2012 – April 2, 2012 March 31, 2012 – April 13, 2012 April 12, 2012 – April 18, 2012 April 18, 2012 – April 26, 2012 April 26, 2012 – May 6, 2012 May 2, 2012 – May 22, 2012 May 19, 2012 – June 9, 2012 June 4, 2012 – June 20, 2012 June 18, 2012 – June 28, 2012 June 26, 2012 – July 12, 2012 July 3, 2012 – July 22, 2012 July 19, 2012 – July 29, 2012 July 25, 2012 – August 9, 2012 August 7, 2012 – August 30, 2012 August 29, 2012 – September 13, 2012 September 13, 2012 – September 27, 2012 September 26, 2012 – October 5, 2012 September 24, 2012 – October 20, 2012 October 9, 2012 – October 31, 2012 October 29, 2012 – November 19, 2012 November 17, 2012 – December 5, 2012 December 2–15, 2012 December 15–28, 2012 December 24, 2012 – January 12, 2013 January 13–31, 2013 February 1–10, 2013 February 11–28, 2013 March 1–16, 2013 March 17–27, 2013 March 28 – April 6, 2013 April 6–19, 2013 April 19 – May 3, 2013 April 25 – May 8, 2013 May 6–19, 2013 May 18–30, 2013 May 27 – June 16, 2013 June 17–30, 2013 June 27 – July 30, 2013 July 31 – August 4, 2013 August 4–12, 2013 August 13–27, 2013 August 28 – September 4, 2013 September 5–10, 2013 September 11–22, 2013 September 24 – October 6, 2013 October 7–16, 2013 October 17–27, 2103 October 28 – November 6, 2013 November 7–19, 2013 November 20–27, 2013 November 28 – December 5, 2013 December 6–24, 2013 December 25–30, 2013 December 31, 2013 – January 14, 2014 January 15–24, 2014 January 25–29, 2014 January 30 – February 10, 2014 Archives not yet dated: 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 This manual archive index may be out of date. Future archives: 184 185 186

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

User:MutterErde

Hi, User:Jimbo Wales, why did you block Mutter Erde? Lotje (talk) 11:28, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Strange to bring up something from 2005, but of course you can just look up the reason at the block log: "persistent copyvios after repeated warnings". Deli nk (talk) 13:05, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Indeed, strange to ask about a block from nearly 9 years ago. (Amazing to think how long it has been!) What made you wonder?--Jimbo Wales (talk) 13:26, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

The edits on the different[REDACTED] do not seem to "fit". Thank you for your time. Lotje (talk) 14:51, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Shouldn't the old blocks be let to expire after a time limit? Otherwise we'll end up with an enormous number of indefinite blocks by the year 2100... Count Iblis (talk) 17:38, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Possibly but what's the harm?--Jimbo Wales (talk) 18:36, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

We probably won't be around by 2100. Besides, it's not like they're doing any harm. BethNaught (talk) 18:43, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Hopefully!188.132.226.2 (talk) 22:03, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Well, looking toward the year 2100 according to this article: "This brings us to what I think may well be the most important task of our time. If there will eventually be an "intelligence explosion," how exactly can we set up the initial conditions so as to achieve an outcome that is survivable and beneficial to existing persons?" If Misplaced Pages is going to be used as a source about us, then we should be very careful about how we edit here :) . Count Iblis (talk) 22:12, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Throughout Misplaced Pages, "harm" seems to have become the watchword, and it seems "harm" can only be done by having content, not by not having it. So there's no harm in deleting articles 'just to be safe', based on some guess about what might happen if people read them, even when the rest of the world doesn't see it that way; nor in getting rid of the editors (like MeropeRiddle in the thread deleted above) for expecting, naively, that Misplaced Pages policy is publicly readable someplace; nor is there harm, as you say, in keeping a database of editors to be blocked for all time, so that the threat of some outing deters them from ever trying to start afresh. But if the people here really believe all that, why don't you just walk down to the server room and empty a couple of clips into them? You could probably avoid hundreds, even thousands of embarrassing incidents, even save a few lives somewhere, though we may not know where, by preventing the wrong people from learning the wrong thing. Sure, some readers lose some knowledge that might have slaked their idle curiosity, but who cares? That's as valueless as the hundreds of thousands of edits so many of the most active editors put in before being banned for some trumped-up issue. Why do so many here act like they really believe that contributions are the problem, information is the problem, and discarding editors and censoring out the facts is the universal answer? Wnt (talk) 20:31, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Nice rant, but not sure how it applies in this context. We are talking about a user banned for "persistent copyvios after repeated warnings".--Jimbo Wales (talk) 12:35, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

You don't think we can let someone like that have a fresh start after nine years? True, in many ways it might be better for the person to start a fresh account and never mention the old one, but the way WP works, as long as the old one remains blocked there's a risk that the person admits he used to post under that account or can be traced from some postings on the web, etc. -- and end up with a fresh batch of trouble. We would do better to sweep all this stuff aside. I think past contributors, whether perfect or not, are still a good pool of prospects for future involvement. Wnt (talk) 15:18, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I do think we can let just about anyone have a fresh start after nine years. That's why I said that I don't claim any special privilege with respect to the fact that I happened to be the one who banned him. We should just treat it like any other ban from nine years ago. What I meant in my comment to you is that the rant about having content versus not having content isn't really relevant to this particular case.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 18:06, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

@ User:Wnt, you are right, information is the problem... too often. Though, I am convinced wiki wizzards and fairies are keeping a vigilant eye and help wherever they can.

@ User:Jimbo Wales, would you consider unblocking User:Mutter Erde. He, might be willing to make a fresh start. Thank you for considering it. Ye'all have a great day today. Lotje (talk) 06:53, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

So really what your are asking for the ban on User:MutterErde to be lifted. The relevant policy page is WP:UNBAN although it is a little unclear how bans imposed by Jimbo can be lifted. I would start by the user making a case for why the ban should be lifted on their talk page: User talk:MutterErde. The appeal should address the two main reasons the ban was imposed WP:COPYVIO and WP:SOCK. Note ban and blocks are different things, bans which MutterErde has are more serious. See the reason for the ban at WP:BANLIST.--Salix alba (talk): 08:00, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Just read the text in the Jimbo Wales section of WP:BANLIST. "They may appeal their ban by emailing him or the Arbitration Committee."--Salix alba (talk): 08:06, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

In this case, I'm happy to say that the fact that I am the one who banned him 9 years ago should play no special role today. If he seeks to be unbanned, he can follow whatever procedure the community thinks appropriate.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 12:35, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

How generous of you after only 9 years of ban to allow a human being to be thrown to one of your drama boards to satisfy your community! 188.132.226.2 (talk) 22:03, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

About the harm this does, consider the situation on the long run. After a time T, the fraction of editors blocked in a time period spanning t will scale as t/T (this will start to be valid some time after the number of editors has stopped to grow exponentially). So, we'll have a huge list of blocked editors, but that list will be dominated by people who were blocked a long time ago. We keep an eye on new editors to see if they are socks of the blocked editors, so most of that effort is going to be wasted on checking for irrelevant or non-existent threats with the risk of false positives (who cares if an editor blocked at the age of 15 has returned at the age of 30?) The editors who should remain blocked are the editors who were blocked recently (in the last few years or so). It thus makes sense to unblock all editors after, say, 5 years unless there is evidence of recent misbehavior by socks. Count Iblis (talk) 15:50, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

• IMO after 5 years, unless the community has decided that they cannot come back under any means, a banned or blocked editor should be able to make a clean start account, and if someone finds out it will not be held against them. KonveyorBelt 19:09, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

In all honesty, am confused because I noticed there is a User:Mutter Erde and a User:MutterErde. I posted a message on the de.wikiquote userpage because I feel, having said A, I need to say B. The rest is up to everyone concerned I guess. Thank you for your time. Lotje (talk) 15:27, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

I think we need an automated process to randomly delete stuff from Misplaced Pages. We could start with empty sections. They are so evil . Stubs should be next, particularly those with zero refs etc. Then we could have process by which we automatically delete sourced material too, particularly if admin disagrees with it. Most sources are known to be unreliable from time to time. So DELETE all of them, just as a precaution. JMP EAX (talk) 16:38, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

@ User:Jimbo Wales, sorry to trouble you again with blocked users, but from what I retrieved today, and what has been confirmed in a certain way by Mutter Erde, the Hans Bug case might be, as Mutter Erde calls it: ...die traurigste Leiche im Keller seiner deutschen WP-Filiale (translated: ...the saddest corpse in the basement of the Germand WP-Chapter.) IMHO, some checking at the 'wizzard heaven' would not harm anyone. Thank you for your time. Lotje (talk) 16:17, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

@ Jimbo: This case seems to be a bit strange. As far as I can see MutterErde's "last words" are placed on YOUR talk site - https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:Jimbo_Wales&diff=next&oldid=23835406#Have_you_seen_this_.3F . They are a complaint or even a request for help, which you didn't answered with a link to the new fair use rules/templates of these days in September 2005, but with a ban of this productive author. Right or wrong? 91.65.74.2 (talk) 09:35, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages editor being railroaded by Wikipediocracy

• UPDATE: An SPI concluded that user:Kaletony is a sock of user:Doxelary II, and, possibly user:Doxelary. Diff. User:Kaletony has been indefinitely blockedMemills (talk) 18:36, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Mr Wales, Tutelary was doxxed by members of Wikipediocracy. They also claim that she is not really a transwoman, which is obvious transphobia. Now there is a proposal on ANI to topic ban her from BLPs or even site ban her. Just because she moderates some subreddits about women on Reddit does not mean that she is an MRA. Remember, Wikipediocracy are the same people who claimed that a KKK member shouldn't be editing articles about Jews. That's not how Misplaced Pages works - anyone can edit anything. I bet Tutelary knows more about feminists than most of the people who edit in that topic area. Please put a stop to this harrassment by Wikipediocracy supporters. Anyone voting to ban Tutelary should be banned for supporting doxxing. Doxelary (talk) 21:26, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

This is my favorite edit. We wouldn't want the readers thinking a fedora was ever anything but the manliest of manly hats. __ E L A Q U E A T E 22:59, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Wow, Elaqueate, that's pretty impressive — 1300 edits your first month at Misplaced Pages and more than 3500 your second!!! Care to disclose your previous account name??? You don't seem to want to link account names on your user page, I see... (The cult of anonymity sucks.) Carrite (talk) 00:16, 14 September 2014 (UTC) — my bad, read years as months. Still — no linkage of accounts showing. Carrite (talk) 00:34, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

I've never had another Misplaced Pages account. There's nothing to link. How many accounts do you have? __ E L A Q U E A T E 00:47, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

If you were to take a gander at the page's history, it will be painfully obvious the context of that revert. But yes, in given Doxelary's (is that a play on my name?) observation, I have been doxxed and there is a ANI proposal to site ban me. Oh, and for sheer else other than respect to trans people, a savvy ArbCom member should take a look at the whole darned mess as there are several people still referring to me by male pronouns when I've made clear that I am a woman. Tutelary (talk) 23:07, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

I don't want to make you uncomfortable here Tutelary, but I am sure you understand why people may be confused by your statements about your gender. You have recently said that you are not a man and not trans but a woman (with the implication being that you were born a woman). Yet you identified briefly here as trans. You now say this was by accident, but it seems an awfully strange mistake to make, expecially in light of everything else. Wikipediocracy seems to think that you are a dude pretending to be trans and the comments on that blog post have links to where someone with your username talks about pretending to be a woman online so that you can infect their computer via racy images. So, without meaning any disrepect, would you be willing to clarify what you mean by "I am a woman"? Kaletony (talk) 15:37, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Kaletony (talk), you are apparently brand new to Misplaced Pages, yet amazingly you have mastered WP policy, jargon and formatting codes -- within 24 hours. Would you be willing to clarify whether you have ever edited WP under another username, or via an IP address? Are you a sock? Memills (talk) 00:33, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

MeMills, you are topic banned from "discussing the topic of men's rights on any page at Misplaced Pages unless it is in the context of an appeal of the ban itself". This is a discussion about an editor who is at risk of being banned for pushing an anti-feminist or pro-men's rights agenda. While I'm sure Titelary appreciates your support, mind that you don't get yourself banned in the process. Kaletony (talk) 03:14, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

You do sound familiar -- that tone. I don't want to make you feel uncomfortable, but you haven't answered the question. Mind that you do not get a SPI. But, since you have only be editing WP for about 24 hours, I'm sure you have no idea what that refers to. Memills (talk) 04:00, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Start a sockpuppetry investigation if you feel like one is needed. Kaletony (talk) 13:50, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Kaletony, an SPI would not be needed if you simply answered the question: Do you have more than one account? Per WP:Sock: "The general rule is one editor, one account." You state here that 'I believe the preferred term is "alternate account'" which suggests that you have two accounts. If you are using an alternative account, per WP:SOCK#NOTIFY you should have links to each on both your "...main and alternative account user pages, either informally or using the userbox templates made for the purpose." Linking the two accounts would obviate the need for an SPI. Memills (talk) 15:48, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Please stop badgering me. If you think I'm breaking some rule, take it to ANI. Kaletony (talk) 16:16, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

The badgering is over. User:Kaletony has been indefinetly blocked by Drmies for 'obviously using an alternative account.' I don't know what other alternative account(s) Kaletony has used, but it should be interesting if the sockpuppet investigation can find out. Memills (talk) 04:41, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

He's just trolling ANI to keep adolescent boys' views of women on Misplaced Pages by keeping 4chan/reddit/wikipediocracy in permanent form here. WP shouldn't be the permanent repository of every feud invented by adolescents. He's certainly an undisclosed alt and drama generator. He's edited ANI, here and his own talk page. --DHeyward (talk) 18:59, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Whaaaaat? That's pretty much the opposite of what I said on ANI. People like Tutelary and 123chess456 who hang out in misogynist forums on Reddit should be banned here if they bring those attitudes with them. You really need to work on your reading comprehension. Kaletony (talk) 23:47, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

That may be and there is no problem with sanctioning those users for their actions. Bringing the battles from those places over extremely marginable subjects Zoe Quinn and Anita Sarkeesian to WP and trolling WP with those topics is not welcome. The influx of SPA's and disruptors that are seeking to spill this dispute from reddit/tumblr/twitter to 4chan to Wikipediocracy is trolling. Conflating it with any male/female edit conflict, as you did with CMDC/Specifico is trolling. Further conflating that isolated topic with an unrelated theft of private photos is trolling. If you like, I can find the caricature trope role that you are playing but really it's just trolling to merge disjoint and orthogonal issues into one fireball of social injustice on Misplaced Pages in order to vainly create a WP:POINT about gender's role on Misplaced Pages. You have made no constructive edits and have sought to broaden what should be a narrow topic. It doesn't help build the encyclopedia but it is divisive. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DHeyward (talk • contribs) 03:46, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Please don't use the trans community as a shield for your hate of women, your gender isn't the most important thing here, it's the way you edit and what you are using the website for --5.81.51.98 (talk) 15:42, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes, how horrible of Tutelary to revert a vandalism-only sockpuppet account. Exactly what level of absurdity is this witch-hunt going to reach?--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 00:39, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Not to mention HJ Mitchell's block was for vague WP:NOTHERE reasoning, not for socking. So their contributions aren't quantifiable for deletion anywho by HJ Mitchell's own block. Tutelary (talk) 00:40, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

User:The Devil's Advocate: defender to the last of Qworty and User:Bonkers The Clown. (Bonkers calls African Americans niggers on article talk pages, calls the US president magic nigga, and wears a swastika in his user name when greeting newbies at the tea house.) Don't go taking his support as any kind of vindication. His name means what it says. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 01:11, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

I know that there is an unfortunate coincidence that you on your travels, Jimmy, and not able to scrutinize things closely, just as you were when the Essjay shit hit the fan, but it is worth considering whether you want to support someone playing the same sort of game as Essjay played of pretending to be what he was not in order to gain an advantage in on-Wiki discussions. Do you again want to let a troll, in this case a misogynist one, be seen to have gulled you?--92.238.57.40 (talk) 00:30, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Administrator and blocker of the IP HJ Mitchell restored the IP's comment, even though in their block heavily implicated they were a sock, yet he doesn't want us to remove the reply. Still, I am a woman and the fact that you only have insults and dragging my name through the mud to back up your accusations is really telling. Tutelary (talk) 01:02, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Whoever you are, the facts are clear. You have been pursuing a misogynistic campaign.KonveyorBelt 01:59, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Doxelary, what exactly do you want from Wales, to block Wikipediocracy? 84.253.75.6 (talk) 16:34, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Tutelary — stop socking. Carrite (talk) 00:28, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

If Tutelary emails you, I recommend you don't click any links or open any attachments. (Per WP:ANI#For your own safety.) --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 01:19, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

For all we know, Tutelary may already have hacked Jimbo's account, the accounts of most ArbCom members and Admins. Misplaced Pages is doomed :). Count Iblis (talk) 15:59, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Oh please, Tutelary has directly confirmed they have hacked various peoples computers before, its fair to recommend not opening links from private emails sent --5.81.51.98 (talk) 20:24, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

On some forum devoted to hacking. If an editor does that here, that's sufficient grounds for an indefinite ban. It's not all that difficult to check if links or attachments are going to cause problems without opening them, so it would be a rather stupid thing to do. Count Iblis (talk) 20:55, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

What we must be guard against (I made this point on AN/I too) is the following scenario (which may not apply to this case, but if this were to happen it would manifest itself with similar symptoms). In the past we've had Wikipediocracy members complain here about editors with politically incorrect views they would like to see banned without going through the regular processes. It may therefore be tempting to them or to some other group to just invent an editor who has politically incorrect views. They can create an account here and also on some forums where they make politically incorrect postings under the same moniker. After a while they can then claim on Wikipediocracy to have "discovered" this Misplaced Pages editor who has all these outrageous views that Misplaced Pages is just tolerating. So, they create an artificial case for intervention on the basis of political incorrectness.

If we were to give in to that, then that would create a precedent. The next time it will be an editor who has less extreme views but those views are still regarded as problematic by some here, and then some Admin may act on the precendent set. The rules for reversing a ban means that unless there is a consensus against the ban, the ban won't be reversed. In practice this means that the ban will stand. The minority of editors who think that BLPs should not be edited by people who have questionable views will then have their way. But just consider the turmoil we've had in the climate change area when there was only the perception in the community that editors here were not giving the climate sceptical editors enough room to edit. So, on the long run this would create a lot of problems for Misplaced Pages. We should therefore allow everyone to edit all articles unless they are creating problems here. We should not care about postings on some hacker forums or elsewhere. Only if the disruption here is a problem can off Wiki behavior be used as supplementary evidence. Count Iblis (talk) 17:02, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but that's an insane way to run a volunteer organization. If a volunteer at the United Way, or the hospital auxiliary, or the local food bank turns out to spend their free time engaged in odious behavior (fill in the blank; racism, computer crime, sexual harassment, etc), then the organization in question will quickly terminate their relationship with that volunteer. No reputable organization would ignore odious behavior on the part of its volunteers simply because the behavior took place outside some arbitrarily circumscribed workspace. The degree to which our practices here are divorced from reality is disappointing. MastCell  18:02, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages has to be as neutral as possible. We should ask if this Misplaced Pages in the 1950s would have allowed Alan Turing with his politically incorrect views on homosexuality, to edit. Note that some volunteer organisations in the US ban gay people from participating. Count Iblis (talk) 18:30, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Most don't. And sexual harassment, racism, and computer crime are not just "politically incorrect", but rather odious and likely to remain so indefinitely. I think you're presenting hypothetical irrelevancies in lieu of addressing my actual point, which is that that reputable volunteer organizations do not ignore odious behavior solely because it happens outside the scope of direct volunteer activities. MastCell  18:40, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

What works for these organizations is not likely to work well for us, and it's not necessary. One can ask why can't we just let the law take care of the bad people while we stick to building the encyclopedia? If a racist here creates problems with his racist behavior here, we should ban this person. But if we start to care what someone does elsewhere (which is not what we are supposed to do here), then it's inevitable that we get tangled up in unnecessary controversies. E.g. many people in the Arab World have problems with the existence of Israel, many will have views that are deeply offensive to Jews. At most we can ask them to keep their private views private here on Misplaced Pages. But if we go on a fishing expedition to try to find if some Arab editor here also posts on some other forum and then use some controversial remarks made there (e.g. during the Gaza war) to argue that he should be banned, then all bets are off. Count Iblis (talk) 19:00, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

What works for these organizations is not likely to work well for us... really? Why not? It's this sort of arrogance and exceptionalism that infect "the community" and doom any attempt to deal seriously with the real issues confronting Misplaced Pages. Believe it or not, we can actually learn something from the way other volunteer organizations handle these issues. We're not the first to confront them, and we shouldn't be above learning from others' experiences, although doing so would require at least a nominal degree of humility which seems to be lacking here. MastCell  19:46, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

The question is then if the Misplaced Pages community can best be compared to the members of a volunteer organization, or if the relevant community dynamics mirror more that of a country governed by laws. I think the latter is better model for Misplaced Pages because we have a very diverse group of editors. The main problem here in Misplaced Pages is not the racist editor who according to our gut feelings should not edit here, it is actually that very same gut feeling that we get in vicious editing disputes. Giving in to that feeling is the main cause of the many intractable disputes leading to big ArbCom cases. So, going after the few racists here may look like a good thing to do but it is actually only going to lead Misplaced Pages to go down the drain. It's not really that banning a particular racist will do harm, but the precendent that this will set will lead to other editors being banned or restricted and that will cause big disputes, paralyzing the project. Count Iblis (talk) 02:02, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Mastcell, if you are accusing another editor of "computer crime", then such accusations should go privately to arbcom, along with any evidence that you and others have been able to collect. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 22:20, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm not accusing anyone of anything. I'm trying to establish the principle that certain off-wiki actions are reprehensible enough to impact our willingness to allow someone to continue editing here. Right now, a significant proportion of "the community" don't seem to ascribe to that principle, which I see as concerning. MastCell  23:31, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

I don't know anything about this issue and have no comment about the rest of it, but in regards to an offhand comment by the original poster, I'm stunned that in four days, nobody has challenged this. You're criticizing Wikipediocracy for saying that a KKK member should not be editing articles about Jews? Really? If we can't get nearly unanimous agreement that a KKK member should not be editing articles about Jews, then there is little hope for Misplaced Pages. --B (talk) 01:20, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

And what if the edits themselves are found to be good? Because in that case, the KKK organization may well decide to kick that person out of their organization. If they are the intolerant organization and we are not, why not use that as an advantage over them? Count Iblis (talk) 02:07, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Umm ... are you suggesting that we should allow professing KKK members to edit articles about Jews because that might cause the KKK to expel the member? I ... umm ... I guess I'm speechless. Go find any sane person out on the street and ask if it makes sense to hire a KKK member as a biographer of a Jewish person. 100% of the time, the answer will be an emphatic no. There's something wrong with egalitarianism at the expense of common sense. --B (talk) 02:15, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

But we're not hiring anyone, people come edit here anonymously as volunteers. If a KKK member were to edit an article about Jews here, then it may be that those edits will be found to be problematic and if the problems on these and perhaps other articles persist, someone here may find out that the editor is an KKK member. That information will in practice lead us to the conclusion that the editor in question is not likely to ever edit the articles in an acceptable way, so a topic ban is then the most likely remedy. But all of this is set in motion by the problematic behavior on the relevant Wiki pages. In contrast, there may well be KKK members who do not agree with what the KKK says about Jews and who edit Misplaced Pages in a way that doesn't cause any problems. It would not be helpful at all to try to out such editors and kick them out of Misplaced Pages. Count Iblis (talk) 02:33, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

What matters to me is not the person making the edits, but the edits a person makes.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 03:26, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I get that. What I'm trying to understand is whether people like you and Count Iblis speak for the community, or whether you are (as I believe) extremist outliers. MastCell  20:50, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

need help.............ebola virus epidemic west africa

hi sorry to bring this to your attention, however I've been trying to give an opinion in regards to the latest ebola outbreak on the talk page for "ebola virus epidemic west Africa", however I keep getting the runaround. At issue is the recent publication,,,,,,, http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/to-your-health/wp/2014/09/09/oxford-study-predicts-15-more-countries-are-at-risk-of-ebola-exposure/ ,,,& ,,,http://elifesciences.org/content/early/2014/09/05/eLife.04395 the latter being a scientific journal which on page 45 (pdf) makes a direct relation between the west Africa and Congo outbreaks on its map. I believe this warrants (1) Congo's inclusion into the "cases-table" for overall case amount and (2) a better written Congo part; more connected to the overall ebola outbreak in Africa.I, aside from noting the above on the respective "talk page" have also brought it up with "Gandydancer" one of the principle editors, on this persons talk page, but have gotten little discussion.I believe everyone should be equal in opinion, without "page ownership". How should I proceed in your opinion?,,thank you

P.S.....W.H.O. itself has used west Africa and Congo together to show total cases (page 4 ) as I requested in article,,, (http://www.afro.who.int/en/downloads/doc_download/9431-who-response-to-the-ebola-virus-disease-evd-outbreak-update-by-the-who-regional-director-for-afric.html... .--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 13:47, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

This seems like a good discussion to have at the talk page. I'm not fully persuaded by your argument as the two outbreaks seem to be unrelated. If there is sufficient data, then I think a separate cases table for the Congo would be wise. And yes, the Congo part should be better written. I am not sure what you mean about "direct relation" and "more connected to the overall ebola outbreak". What we certainly should not do is go against reliable sources and make it seem to the reader that these two outbreaks are directly related. But - this is probably a discussion better held at the talk page. (As you may have noticed, I'm active there already.)--Jimbo Wales (talk) 18:26, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

I have not given Ozzie a run-around. I replied to him/her on September 10 suggesting that this can be difficult to understand, and suggested that he read the Ebola disease and the Ebola virus articles. He never responded. As for including a table for the Congo outbreak, I don't agree. The West Africa article is long enough as it is, and the Congo outbreak needs to play out a little bit longer before we increase coverage of it, though definitely in a separate article. Gandydancer (talk) 19:23, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Your reasoning persuades me - almost. I think that a separate article is warranted now, based on significant independent coverage in high quality sources. is an example.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 21:55, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Well, of course, opinions differ. IMO, considering that many thousands of Africans die each year from preventable disease, a Congo Ebola article that has killed 35 is not needed considering that an outbreak in that area every few years is not at all out of the norm. In fact, to me, it seems a disgraceful lack of understanding of the level of care available to the underprivileged. But since you consider it notable, certainly create the article and watch over it to be certain that it is updated properly. Note, however, that the current article on the West African outbreak is already using the "significant independent coverage in high quality sources" (WHO) for all but one of its sources, I'm not sure what you think may be missing from the current coverage in the existing West Africa article. Or possibly, since you have said above that the South Africa section on the Congo needs to be rewritten, you could just rewrite the section to improve the Congo coverage. Gandydancer (talk) 19:48, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

"a disgraceful lack of understanding of the level of care available to the underprivileged" - that's just a gratuitous and quite frankly ridiculous insult. When you say "considering many thousands of Africans die each year from preventable diseases" I question why you bothered to come here to insult me. The actual number is in the millions.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 07:23, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Jimbo, I did not come here to insult you. I came here to defend myself and, as one of the two major editors of the article, to defend the article. While you first said that Ozzie's complaints would be best handled at the article rather than here on your talk page, you then went right ahead and criticized the Congo section saying it needed to be rewritten. Since I wrote the section, it is demoralizing to see my work criticized on a page that is read by thousands. I have spent many hours on that article and the other major editor has spent even more. I think that it's a good article, but upkeep has been difficult and time consuming because the situation in West Africa is changing so rapidly. As the disease spreads there has needed to be a great deal of cutting and rearranging of the article to keep it focused and at a reasonable length. But to come here and find only a criticism is hurtful and insulting. While you seem quite able to note that I insulted you, it would have been nice if you had seen that you were insulting me. Gandydancer (talk) 05:11, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

My Two Cents

NB: Hat edit summaries are more useful when neutral and don't lash out any anyone involved.

A beer for you!

Dear Jim, I am lodging a formal complaint against a page which I view as damaging. The predescribed page is labelled 'Suicide Methods' and provides such content in intricate detail, citing (helpful?) resources. This page is easily accessible via a simple google search( 'suicide') and thus has HIGH potential for misuse. For this reason I am attempting to contact you directly in a bid to remove such pages from existence. Whilst the page entitled 'Suicide' is not explicit or clumsily written enough to warrant deletion, the aforementioned is. I hope this comment isn't lost amongst a sea of those by other users, Yours Sincerely, Al Redzimus (talk) 16:40, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Civility and the WMF again: Where is the Disconnect? - A Survey

I realize that there has been previous discussion of what the WMF can do to foster civility in the English Misplaced Pages. That discussion here has been archived. I would like to repeat one suggestion in particular. There is a major discrepancy between the stated views of the WMF on civility and the positions defined by "community consensus" at the noticeboards. In particular, civility is a condition of the WMF's Terms of Use that govern all WMF communities, and at least one member of the WMF board, the owner of this talk page, has expressed concerns about the lack of civility enforcement. On the other hand, civility is not enforced at the English Misplaced Pages noticeboards unless it rises to the level of personal attacks, and not always even then (e.g., the allegation of brainlessness). There is a disconnect between stated overall WMF policy, and its restatement by the owner of this talk page, and its application at the noticeboards. My question is: Where does the disconnect lie? There are at least two explanations. First, the views of the WMF are out of line with those of English Misplaced Pages editors as a whole. Second, the views of English Misplaced Pages editors are not properly represented by the editors who take part in discussions at the noticeboards. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:05, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Your two explanations are not mutually exclusive. As we have seen with MediaViewer and the SuperProtect user right, WMF is out of step not only with English Misplaced Pages but with volunteers in other projects. The hardline Friendly Space/Civility Or Else view, clapping of hands at Wikimania 2014 notwithstanding, does not reflect majority opinion of the volunteer community. There is also something to be said for the idea that acerbic or outspoken people tend to congregate at the noticeboards — and I include you and I and this page in that statement. This is natural, politics attracts a certain "type." I find aggressive language in such places less disturbing than I would in the context of an attack of a good faith editor in mainspace or a mainspace talk page, for example. Civility can not be enforced by the point of a gun — it's an attitude and it takes peacemakers not conflict-escalaters to solve the problem of incivility. Wherever human beings congregate, there will be factionalism and conflict — it is part of human nature. It doesn't need to be mean, however, but reducing meanness isn't gonna happen through establishing a centralized Niceness Police. Carrite (talk) 19:15, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

What the WMF can and should do is to survey the extended English Misplaced Pages community. A neutrally worded survey should be composed, and posted on project talk pages and sent by email, with mechanisms to prevent stuffing the box. The survey should ask whether editors think that the current level of civility enforcement is appropriate, is too strict, or is too loose. It should also include other questions, such as questions about editor retention. Responses should be stratified as well as possible, such as by gender, by length of time of editing, by frequency of edits, by how frequently they would like to edit, and by other information, some of which can be collected by automation, and some of which can be self-declared (taking into account the uncertainty of self-declaration). If the WMF doesn't have available technical resources to conduct the survey with sufficient detail and stratification, it should consider the reassignment of technical resources from questionable projects such as Flow. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:05, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

What theory are you investigating? It seems you are putting the cart ahead of the horse in assuming that this is a major problem that is somehow impairing the project. As for readers, they don't even see this backstage world. As for volunteers, the big majority don't congregate on the drama pages or work on the drama topics or populate the drama task force. If incivility is really the cause of such great destructive loss of editors, why would you survey the active volunteers at all? Ask former editors why they have left and how to fix Misplaced Pages's problems — that would teach us something. You're already assuming you know the answer though, so the survey results are apt to be skewed if you frame things the way you indicate here. Questions need to be asked with an open mind. As for needing a detailed survey with careful analysis of answers according to defined subgroups — that I agree with wholeheartedly. Carrite (talk) 19:27, 17 September 2014 (UTC) Last edit: Carrite (talk) 19:41, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

If the survey finds that the larger community of editors is consistent with the community of the noticeboards, then the WMF should drop or downgrade its emphasis on civility, and recognize that the current civility climate is what the larger editorial community wants. If the survey finds that the "community" of the noticeboards, that largely ignores civility, does not represent the larger community of editors, then some sort of WMF intervention, in the least disruptive possible form, is needed. (Jimbo Wales has recognized, correctly, that introducing "community organizers" as administrators would be disruptive and would make the situation worse, for instance.) The suggestion of the involvement of a small group of mediators has been made, which would be a good idea if care is taken to avoid the fallacy of moderation. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:05, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

(The gender gap is a special case. Even if the larger editorial community thinks that the disproportion of male editors over female editors is not a problem, it is true that the ratio of male editors to female editors is not representative of the technically literate population. Some action on the gender gap is needed in any case, but, at the same time, disruptive action on the gender gap, like on civility, would backfire.) Robert McClenon (talk) 18:05, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Instead of hiring 20 more engineers, WMF needs to hire two or three people to do nothing but construction and analysis of surveys — real live stats people, not "good ol' boys"... Hint: They don't have to live in San Francisco. Carrite (talk) 19:45, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Either the WMF has a handle on the views of the larger editorial community, or it does not. A survey is needed, and either action or inaction. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:05, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

The owner of this talk page has himself been somewhat less than civil on a number of occaisions. Sauce for the goose... DuncanHill (talk)#

One of the many problems with civility enforcement is related to the famous Potter Stewart comment. When asked if he could define pornography he responded, "I know it when I see it". While many would agree that they might struggle with a formal defintion of civility, they beleive they have no trouble identifying examples of incivility. I don't doubt this, however what some may miss is that many of these identifications will not overlap from person to person.

That leaves us with a dual problem: it is hard enough to codify a set of rules when one has difficulty defining the terms but add to that the likely fact that different members of the community have very different opinions on what type of responses are considered incivil.

The community claims it wants a civil environment but when it comes to actually enforcing this, it becomes very difficult. If we do draw everyone's map of incivility would be a set of overlapping Venn diagrams with a rather common overlap. That means we have a relatively small number of sanctions for civility in which there is little disagreement. We have a large number of attempted sanctions where a significant portion of the community disagrees.

This leaves an outsider observing that there are relatively few sanctions that stick and quite a few items of perceived incivility that go on challenged leaving an outsider to think that Misplaced Pages is not particularly interested in enforcing civility.--S Philbrick(Talk) 20:10, 17 September 2014 (UTC)