Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Wnt (talk | contribs) at 04:24, 27 May 2011 (→Living person Policy on a Meta Level). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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

Template:Fix bunching

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

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 1 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 2 sections are present.

Template:Fix bunching

Template:Fix bunching  

Requiring users to do some regular editing before allowing them to create articles

Hi Jimbo. We recently underwent an RFC on whether we should require autoconfirmed status in order to create articles. The motivation for doing so was based on a statistical study showing that new editors who get their start doing ordinary editing are more likely to master the learning curve on Misplaced Pages and stick around, whereas new editors who start by creating an article are more likely to run afoul of basic policies and leave.

The good faith supporters of this idea believe that users will have an easier time swimming if we make sure they swim in the shallow end before they can head out to the deep end. (Or, if you prefer a video game analogy, starting on level 1 is fun, and starting on level 10 is demoralizing.) The good faith opponents of this idea think this would be one more nail in the coffin of the "open" structure of Misplaced Pages, with maybe the first nail in the coffin being when we limited article creation to only those with Misplaced Pages accounts.

After a lengthy RFC, there are users who are basically in favor (sharing the "View from User:Jayron32"), and users who are basically opposed (sharing the "View from User:Ironholds"). When you account for the other viewpoints, you see a lot of "yes, but only if..." and "no, unless..." views that add conditional support to this proposal. We're at the point where we are trying to figure out what the consensus is. But in the predictably poisonous atmosphere in most RFCs, there is no consensus about how to assess consensus.

I personally hate vote counts, and think the overall spirit of the RFC is obvious: most people would agree with doing some sort of trial. The opponents would get their evidence proving that this is a bad idea. The supporters would get their evidence proving this is a good idea. And the large number of "yes, but"/"no, unless" people would get to design a solution that maximizes benefits and minimizes costs. But people from democracies are used to voting, so Wikipedians end up arguing about headcounts for black-or-white options, which means that we never get a discussion about "what's the best possible way to satisfy the most number of people".

And even the counting process is subject to whatever point you want to prove.

For the opponents, they see a good 30% opposed to this proposal (Ironholds view), which according to them is enough to close this as "no consensus". (This 30% includes whatever was attracted by opposition canvassing on meta.) The supporters disagree, pointing out that just between Ironholds (nay) and Jayron (yay), there are 70% in support, which according to them represents a consensus to move forward somehow. Then there are numerous other "no, unless" and "yes, but only if" viewpoints that would add "conditional support" beyond 70%, although I'm loathe to estimate whether that's 5% or 10% more support if people can just Wikilawyer over what that number means for consensus. Even if the 70% is enough, we would only have a consensus to move forward in principle, and a consensus would still need to come together on the details of implementation, which for most "conditional supporters" would include a temporary trial.

In the past, Erik Möller of the Foundation has said that "a very large majority, at least two thirds, is generally necessary" when discussing whether to implement flagged revisions. I'm not sure if that's the case for this proposal. Last month, you stated that the community should send a strong signal that we want to test this, and get empirical evidence, and not allow a tiny minority to block progressive change. Most of us are only going to argue about what that even means.

Not to put you in an awkward spot. We know you're not the king. But you're our best contact at the Foundation, and this is a significant enough change that the Foundation has to sign off. So on behalf of the community, I have a few questions:

1. How do we draw the Foundation's attention to this RFC?
2. What would the Foundation consider a "clear signal" that the community wants to (at least) test this? Is it a numbers game?
3. Is there anything we can do at this RFC in terms of counting or organizing it to make it obvious whether the clear signal is there or not?
4. Is there anything better than a 500 person RFC for assessing the consensus on this?

Get back to us at your earliest convenience. Thanks. Shooterwalker (talk) 16:45, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Wish I'd seen and gotten involved in that RfC... I know the community is sort of all over the place about Pending Changes, but I think (assuming the code can be made to work in such fashion) that this may be an ideal use of it. PC an entire article created by someone who's not confirmed or autoconfirmed. They'll still be able to work on it, edit it, expand it... but it won't go live until it's reviewed. Considering it (my suggestion, anyway) would only apply to unconfirmeds, it shouldn't be too big of a workload queue. Just a thought... ROBERTMFROMLI | /_CN 19:56, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Akin to Misplaced Pages:Village_pump_(proposals)/Proposal_to_require_autoconfirmed_status_in_order_to_create_articles#Radical_view_from_User:Collect perhaps? Collect (talk) 20:42, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Indeed. To effect a similar effect to what's been described, while patrolling newpages, I've been doing my best to jump in on such articles and tag as under construction or other suitable tags to show they've been reviewed and the editor should be given time, then follow up with welcome messages and offers to help. If there was a specific tagging/noindex combination applied to such, it'd make it easier I suspect. ROBERTMFROMLI | /_CN 20:53, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Even some of those opposed to all PC seem to allow this as a nice potential use <g>. Collect (talk) 21:31, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Now that's just trolling. There are password authentication schemes that would keep out fewer new editors. Wnt (talk) 23:13, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Um -- what the heck is that comment intended to prove? Once we have "password authentication schemes" - how precisely is that different from "registration" in the first place? And, in any case, how is pointing out that some PC opponents thought the use of PC for new editor/articles was a good idea remotely related to "trolling"? Enquiring minds want to know. Cheers. Collect (talk) 10:15, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

The discussion has been halted today, and an administrator will be evaluating consensus and making a closing summary in the next few days. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:00, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

All I can say about all this is that I like data-driven decision making. For too long, we've allowed emotionalism about certain features of the software to rule the day. There are enough resources now that we shouldn't do that.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 06:31, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

The only problem is that some data is impossible to get. I would expect that many people edit Misplaced Pages as IPs, then create an account when they want to start their first article (so while the account is "new", the editor isn't -- this makes any data on edits after account creation and how often the first edit is article creation not useful for the purpose of determining what the user's first edit was). Unfortunately I don't think there is a way to get useful data on this without massively infringing on people's privacy. —Кузьма 07:57, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Certainly Snottywong and I came up with some interesting data concerning NPP and why ir's not performing as it should. I agree that emotion driven opinion is not the way we should be working, and unfortunately, some of the longest 'user views' were based solely on personal opinion. Some data is hard to get, but there is no reason to discount fairly sound empirical findings. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:05, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

I see that the discussion is closed (perhaps the village pump is not an ideal place for a discussion of this sort). Personally, I think that the power to create articles is what motivates many users and snares them in as editors (disclosure, my sixth edit was a new article) and anything that discourages assimilation of new editors is a bad idea. Creating an article from scratch and negotiating the notability minefield is an excellent way of learning the importance of sourcing. --rgpk (comment) 16:39, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Not all articles are alike, which means they require different views. One size does not fit all. If someone creates a stub articles for a new Illinois state senator, using the source code of the previous state senator's article as a template, that doesn't require a lot of knowledge or experience, does it? But a very useful article. If, however, one is creating an article about a controversial point about quarks, it might be presumed the writer should have both knowledge and experience as it's not likely a very similar article could be found to use as a template. Then we have the authors who can't wait to write an article about their garage band, formed less than 24 hours ago. Treating all these articles and wannabe authors as identical, requiring identical reactions, guidelines, whatever, doesn't make sense. First define the problem, then work on solutions. I like data-driven decision making too, but first you have to figure out what sort of data you need. I'm seeing quite disparate "first time authors" treated as part of one big pool, and I don't see that as helpful. Flatterworld (talk) 17:36, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

• Thanks for the response. Closing the discussion is underway. Hopefully some kind of consensus can be extracted from the wide participation. Shooterwalker (talk) 21:53, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

I have posted my closing summary, they key conclusion of which is that there was consensus for at least conducting a trial of the proposed change. I know that there was some notion of "keeping the Foundation informed" about the community's views on this proposal, so if there is some other place where notification of the results should be posted, please let me know and I'm happy to do so. --RL0919 (talk) 02:16, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Flagged Revisions vs. Full Protection on ANI

Not sure if you watch WP:ANI at all, but you might want to weigh in on this discussion. — The Hand That Feeds You: 18:18, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

I missed the fireworks, thank goodness. I would recommend the following: that ArbCom injunctions be followed, that no one do anything drastic.

As for me, during the period when Pending Changes is being removed, I'm going to adjust my personal threshold for when I apply semi- and full- protection to articles that I edit as an ordinary editor/admin. (Chiefly BLPs.) I will apply it much more quickly than before. I don't intend to do anything dramatic, but I recommend and encourage admins who are disappointed about the removal of a feature that had 65% support and was demonstrably effective in both permitting wider editing of Misplaced Pages and protecting BLP victims to follow my lead. BLP protection comes first, in my book, and if people don't like seeing BLPs protected, then we can all work harder to find solutions that allow both open editing and stop the abuse of Misplaced Pages.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 06:48, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Living person Policy on a Meta Level

The Biography of Living Persons Policy is one the fundamental policies Misplaced Pages strives to maintain. However I have recently come to be aware of a meta level issue of how we handle our interaction with living people. I am going to describe the situation, withholding the names involved to look at the situation objectively without bias.

"Editor A" added a file of a document hosted on the commons Commons to an article on "Organization X." This self-published document is hosted on Commons under Creative Commons licensing. The document makes accusations against a senior leader of "Organization X", specifically numerous alleged crimes that the senior member has committed according to this document. This document alleges all these crimes have been committed, but these allegations have never been investigated by any law enforcement body. Further investigation of similar uploads by "Editor A" shows a large number of files where serious allegations are made against individuals of all ranks of "Organization X." These allegations are all in freely licensed You Tube videos that have subsequently been uploaded to Commons. Further investigation shows that on Wikisource "Editor A" has uploaded multiple freely licensed Blog posts alleging criminal behavior that again, no one has ever been charged with.

The ethical issues raised by this seem obvious to me on in terms of how we look at living persons being treated on the meta level. The way I see it the free license is being taken advantage of to utilize Wikimedia sites as a vehicle to advance WP:SPS containing unsubstantiated allegations against living persons.The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 16:32, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

God no, please, we do not need to metastasize BLP and subjugate Commons by force in order to protect Scientology from well deserved criticism. For example, Commons files are raw data, not a common encyclopedic product; the responsibility of one editor, not many; and not the top Google hit for a search. Wnt (talk) 01:06, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Files which contain serious allegations against living people not supported by reliable sources would be subject to deletion for BLP reasons if hosted locally, notwithstanding their copyright status, on the same basis as text. Presumably, similar procedures apply to commons. While YouTube and personal blogs are outside our remit, self-published material which could not be hosted locally for BLP reasons should not be linked. The status of material as related or unrelated to Scientology is irrelevant to the BLP issues presented. Chester Markel (talk) 01:11, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Such BLP-related restrictions on files uploaded to Wikimedia projects would not be protecting Scientology or other controversial groups "from well deserved criticism". Anyone can set up a website from which to distribute self-published criticism of such groups not substantiated by reliable sources, and promote the site by some means other than linking to it from a WMF project. Restrictions on the use of commons for this purpose only ensures that they cannot use our reputation to bolster their critiques. Protection of living people is the primary purpose of BLP, but it's not the only one. The policy is also intended to protect the public image of Wikimedia projects, which undoubtedly suffers when they host tabloid style content. Chester Markel (talk) 01:23, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

@Wnt, I am not suggesting that at that we need to metastasize BLP, nor am trying to censor criticism of CoS. The is a large difference between fair criticism and criminal allegations. I am looking at the ethical issues of hosting content that makes unsubstantiated criminal allegations against living people. Further more the ethical issues of hosting such content on Wikimedia sites and how it interacts with our established principals with Living people. The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 01:32, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Commons is full of self-published information. Is this document realistically useful for an educational purpose? Well, as described at s:Larry Brennan speech at That is Scientology! Reports from the USA (where it is used) the author was invited by the German government to a well-known anti-Scientology event. Searching him online gets you various organizations listing him as a notable opponent. Not to mention a former high ranking member. So I would say the answer is, yes, if you want to know about the current controversy, you can probably find something out by reading what he has to say.

The ethics we need to follow should be based on the idea that the public has the right to learn. That they should not look to Wikimedia as a crudely censored knockoff suitable only for people without money while any serious research requires a subscription to a copyrighted alternative. We should cover what Google covers, what journalists cover, what academia covers, what paywalled archives cover. Wnt (talk) 01:42, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, most material on commons is self-published, and much of it could be construed to make some sort of allegation against a living person in some trivial way. That's not what we're talking about. Material on commons which is problematic for BLP reasons has all the following characteristics:

1. It is self-published, or at least not published by an organization qualifying as a reliable source.
2. It makes serious allegations against identifiable living people. (For example, assertions of substantial criminal activity.)
3. Such allegations are not supported by any reliable source. Thus, if you have a self-published video containing certain claims about living people, but an article published by a credible media organization is properly cited, the policy would not be violated.

Very little of commons content matches criterion two. I quite agree that we should cover "what journalists cover, what academia covers". Self-published scandal sheets are seldom, if ever, paywalled. Chester Markel (talk) 02:12, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

In the example you give, most allegations made by notable opponents of Scientology should already be covered by reliable sources. We don't need the RS to assert the truth of the claims, only that they were made. So a video of someone speaking at "a well-known anti-Scientology event" shouldn't contain very much new, un-citable information. If it somehow does, if claims so outrageous that no RS would ever mention them are asserted, then it is no longer within the realm of "what journalists cover, what academia covers" - it's a self-published scandal sheet, which we shouldn't be hosting. The WMF is obviously not in the business of providing everything "the public the right to learn" from any source whatsoever. Chester Markel (talk) 02:27, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

An obvious exception to the prohibition against linking to any BLP violating material would be articles such as Encyclopedia Dramatica, covering a notable originator of the offending content. Even in this case, specific ED claims about living people should not be described, hosted on WMF in any way, or linked in any manner other than to the main page of the site. Chester Markel (talk) 02:33, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't have enough time just now unfortunately to write about this at length, but I do think it necessary to say this: Wnt, whom I respect very much, is absolutely wrong in this case. But the best place for a discussion of this is Commons. English Misplaced Pages takes a very strong stance against BLP violations; I'm less certain that Commons has reached the appropriate level of maturity on these cases.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 06:41, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

A conversation has been started independently of this thread at Commons:Village pump#Using commons to host original documents (permalink) to discuss this loophole in our protection of living persons. The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 22:43, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

I am honored to have your respect, truly, and as founder of this project you will always have mine. Still I am disappointed to hear you describe this as a matter of "maturity". For example, The Obama Nation, once #1 on the New York Times best-seller list, has been described as "a political 'attack book' containing smears, falsehoods, and innuendo". Against a living person. But if someone decided to remove it from the shelves of the local public library, would you describe that as an act of maturity? Commons has a similar mission: to archive material, not to judge it. Wnt (talk) 04:24, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Request for message

Dear Mr. Wales,

I ask that you request that the Misplaced Pages community handle this manner in a fair manner. You can do this by writing on my page something to that effect. I am not asking you to intervene.

I am writing as a parent on behalf of my child. He has been harrassed in Misplaced Pages, including by a person who seems to have done this for several years to many people. This person seems to have support of an administrator, which is why it is so successful. I will be drafting a complaint in the next few days and forward it to what I believe is the proper channels. I do not live in Misplaced Pages so you could email me but I prefer that you not. Simply make a statement asking that people not game the system by trying to silence me.

My child warns me that I will fall into deaf ears. I am told that the most common way to silence people will be for people to call me a "sock". Cannot write a good argument? Just call the other person a sock. I hope this is not true but I am told that this is very probable. They will use excuses such as that I know how to read and use tildes and say "see, that proves this person is a sock".

Parentsp (talk) 01:56, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

P.S. I am willing to send Misplaced Pages a copy of my driver's license for identification. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Parentsp (talk • contribs) 01:58, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

They won't call you a sockpuppet; they'll call you a meatpuppet. Yeah, it's dumb. Wnt (talk) 02:05, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Not speaking for Mr Wales, but: gosh, this does not sound good, but can you offer any particulars? If your case is valid I am confident that the Misplaced Pages community will stand to your defense and the defense of the person you speak of, but we would have to know more. (Granted this would allow the other parties to make a refuting case publicly which could lead to contentious debate, so if you would rather work through private channels that's your privilege of course.) Good luck and may the right prevail. Herostratus (talk) 04:20, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

To echo what others have said... There are good avenues for this sort of concern, including emailing me personally (use the email function here on the site), emailing the Wikimedia Foundation directly, emailing OTRS, emailing ArbCom, etc. It is unlikely that we would see any need for a driver's license for identification, but what I would need is very specific details about how and where someone was harassed, including links to harassing statements, etc. Vague complaints are the most common way that complaints like this rarely may not reach a satisfactory conclusion, as it's difficult to respond without specifics.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 06:38, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Note: I dropped them a message with my email address. Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 08:56, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Philosophical question

I have noted that some "sock puppet investigations" are closed with indef blocks even without any evidence (I.e. CU are negative, different articles are involved, etc.) on the "duck" basis, with one close even stating that even if the two accounts are totally separate, that if the users have the same opinions and one is banned, that all who share the same opinions should be banned. Whether they are the same editor, or merely friends, or unrelated parties with a strikingly similar point of view does not matter. We can never be sure if two editors are the same person, but when the behavior is both indistinguishable and problematic, any sanction applied to one may be extended to the other(s). I am troubled specifically by the implicit assertion that all who share the same opinions should be banned. Is this, in your opinion only, a valid reason to ban any editor where no other evidence other than "sahring the same opinion" is needed? Is there a likelihood that "duck" has now been stretched to a breaking point? BTW, the editing of the "dick" essay is slow and tedious. Cheers. Collect (talk) 11:05, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Without any actual examples, it is hard to answer a question like "Is there a likelihood that "duck" has now been stretched to a breaking point?" of course. Fram (talk) 11:09, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Recent "duck" solutions at , (duck declined as reason), duck argument, CU negative, primarily duck etc. In fact, almost all of the cases use "duck" without even the need to cite diffs at all <g>. I think the word "evidence" has been stretched as a minimum. The "duck" rationale has been used apparently well over three hundred times this month alone - many are, indeed, socks, but many are far less clear indeed. What I find troubling,however, is the idea that an opinion is sufficient for a banning per se. Misplaced Pages was founded on the basis that even people with "wrong" opinions count. Cheers. Collect (talk) 11:55, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the examples. I don't see any examples though of "closed with indef blocks even without any evidence". Fram (talk) 12:15, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

undisclosed "behavioural evidence" (not a CU connection). duck block. Lots more IPOF. Collect (talk) 12:55, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

The first one has plenty of evidence. The closing comemnt doesn't indicate on what aspect of the presented evidence it is based (probably the whole of it), but it is not fair to claim that it is done on the basis of "undisclosed" evidence. The second one is closed with a one month block for vandalism. The other account is closed as a sockaccount. This is extremely probable, but it would have been better if it was closed as an impersonator account of User:Muboshgu: this editor gave the first user a warning for vandalism (well-deserved) on 02:25, and the account Muboshgu2 is created on 02:38 the same day... All this info is freely available to any editor (the fact that Muboshgu posted the SPI was a clue...). Fram (talk) 13:33, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Might you address the actual issue raised - is simply having similar opinions sufficient for topic bans and blocks? Collect (talk) 13:47, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

No, but you haven't provided any evidence that this actually happens, and considering how your examples of "indef blocks without any evidence" were not really convincing, I have my doubts whether the question you pose actually matches a real situation, or is just a rather one-sided representation. Basically, you are asking for Jimbo's opinion of a situation where you don't provide the background necessary to interpret things correctly. Fram (talk) 14:11, 26 May 2011 (UTC)