Dear Jimbo, Happy Holydays and the New Year 2015!
Now sorry again that I have a difficult question for you. It is about Draft:Igor Janev. Igor Janev should be classified under WP:NPOL person, since he was Special Adviser of the Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Macedonia in 2002. See more from data base Macedonian Emigration Agency (national government source:"Специјален советник на Министерот за надворешни работи" in eng. Special Adviser of the Minister of Foreign Affairs) in Macedonian lang. [1] [2]. In any country Special Advisor to the MFA is WP:NPOL by definition of Wikipedia. See Special Adviser status.183.86.209.161 (talk) 17:34, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
P.S. I feel sufficiently strongly about the issue that I've made this account, I'll wait 4 days and copy it over to a live article (WADR to the wiki's perceived acceptable practices of links to prior publication).
Maybe Mr. Wales can think about how to fix this for all case, instead of some random annoyed person butting in.
The way new people get their intro to make new articles is really fucked up. Igor the facetious xmas bunny (talk) 01:31, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
Perhaps more importantly:
I made this account so that, in 4 days, I can copy the article live. Not to really make a point, but because - having discussed the specific case - I feel a need to give it a fair try.
The specific article isn't really the reason I'm intervening here; it's because of the blatant way that new articles are treated very differently from drafts.
In an ideal world, Wikipedia users would help all new users with their early articles.
Real world: there are not enough good editors to do so.
That's fine; that's just the way things are. OK, so, given that...we should at least treat everyone the same way.
Currently there are two very disparate systems;
A) DRAFTS - wait 2 or 3 weeks, get a review. Likely get rejected for 'lack of sources' with spam-template messages. At least you get some idea how to fix it.
B) Make live article. If it's complete crap, it gets speedy-deleted. Fair enough.
The problem I have is, a large number of good users spend their time trying to help A. But sadly, A is snowed-under, and full of spam.
A great many good-potential new users use B and get no real help at all, just spammed warnings (CSD, etc).
Igor the facetious xmas bunny (talk) 02:09, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
Back to the point;
Would it be "disruptive" if someone just moved the 2700 articles in Category:Pending AfC submissions to live articles?
Why shouldn't they be treated the same as the other articles that are being created (and deleted) every few minutes? (*)
Maybe if I move 10 of them. Or 100. Or 1000.
Perhaps nobody will notice; after all, I have just as much au-thor-i-teh to move them as anyone else, right? Igor the facetious xmas bunny (talk) 06:47, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
Apart from that conclusion, he will not get his BLP (by the way Second time, few months ago his Draft was not rejected, but removed probably by Igor Janev himself, after series of page blanking).183.86.209.149 (talk) 08:52, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
Welcome to Wikipedia - it's full of ammeters. Fortunately. Igor the facetious xmas bunny (talk) 11:26, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
Where does the "four days" come in? Using the just creates NE Ent new user 2 it appears I could create an article with it -- got as far as preview, at least. NE Ent 12:10, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
Going back to the start of this thread, just having the title "Special Adviser" does not automatically give notability under WP:NPOL.
Even when autoconfirmed, the facetious but helpful Bunny will not be able to move the draft to the mainspace without the agreement of an administrator, because the title has been salted - protected against re-creation - following a sustained and continuing campaign of sockpuppetry, described at m:Stewards' noticeboard/Archives/2013-08#Igor Janev and WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Operahome/Archive.
Last time a draft was created, an IP repeatedly blanked it and asked for it to be deleted, claiming in this edit that they were acting "under request and authority of Igor Janev" and that he "does not want to be in Eng. Wikipedia." Perhaps his friends should respect his wishes and spare him further embarrassment. JohnCD (talk) 13:27, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
(edit conflict)
See more stuff: [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] LEGAL ASPECTS OF THE USE OF A PROVISIONAL NAME FOR MACEDONIA IN THE UNITED NATIONS SYSTEM [22] [23] [24] [25] [26] [27] [28] [29] [30] [31] [32] [33] , p.77-78 [34] [35] , When we say US, p. 845, note 28. G. Ivanov, "Recalling that the International Court of Justice 1948 advisory opinion had determined that placing additional criteria on United Nations membership contravened the United Nations Charter", [36] Thomas D. Grant, Admission to the United Nations, Martinus pub. , pp. 203-212 [37] [38] [39] [40] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.101.88.30 (talk) 14:41, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
[42] [43] [44] [45] [46] [47] [48] [49] [50] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.101.88.30 (talk) 14:54, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
[51] and so on... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.101.88.30 (talk) 15:01, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
[53] [54] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.101.88.30 (talk) 16:08, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
[56] [57] [58]79.101.88.30 (talk) 16:14, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
79.101.88.30 (talk) 16:31, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
Probably best source is Macedonian Agency (government source). Than would be the First. 1. source, than independent , Radio Free Europe, Der Standard [68] [69]79.101.88.30 (talk) 16:48, 28 December 2014 (UTC) maybe MINA [70] also. 79.101.88.30 (talk) 16:52, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
support of presidential candidate for I. J. [73] 79.101.88.30 (talk) 17:11, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
OK well, that's 5, but close enough. The 3rd seems to be the same as the first, and the last two are 2 pages of the same. Looking at them;
1. Independent.mk "Experts: Macedonia's Name Cannot be Isolated from Its Identity" - is not an article about Janev Igor; it just mentions him in one sentence. It is about the name of the country. It does not give any significant information about Igor that we can use in a biography.
2. MIA Time has come to put an end to name issue is similar; about the name of the country. It makes a passing mention of Igor.
3. Same link as 1?
4. and 5 novamakedonija Трета варијанта за решавање на проблемот за името (2 pages of the same article?) are in Macedonian (I guess). Google translate tells me the title is "A third option for solving the problem of name". Again, these seem to be articles about the name of the country and not articles about Igor.
None of these are what I was looking for, so it looks like he does not meet the requirements. Those articles are not about Igor Janev - they are about the name of the country, and mention him.
As I said earlier - WP:VRS. I wish you the best of luck, but I do not see that this person meets the notability requirements. Igor the facetious xmas bunny (talk) 17:13, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
P.S. You added more while I was replying; I've not checked those. I really wanted only 3 good references about the person, and I'm not seeing them, sorry. Igor the facetious xmas bunny (talk) 17:13, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
1. Independent, 2. DerStandard. 3. Radio Free Europe, are 3 good sources. I hope it is enough. As well as New Macedonia and Makfaks.79.101.88.30 (talk) 17:30, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
Still the fact is that he was/is Senior diplomat. That is the Fact! Again, Igor Janev must be classified under WP:NPOL person, since he was/is Special Adviser of the Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Macedonia . See more from data base Macedonian Emigration Agency (national government source:"Специјален советник на Министерот за надворешни работи" in eng. Special Adviser of the Minister of Foreign Affairs) in Macedonian lang. [74] [75]. In any country Special Adviser to the MFA is WP:NPOL by definition of Wikipedia. These are rules of Wikipedia! And the source is National base. Sorry, that I am not experience with Wikipedia, but instead of myself these job should work somebody else. Here we should only establish the fact that he is relevant. Nothing else matter.79.101.88.30 (talk) 17:41, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
Actually his son had removed picture/photo of the User:Cú Faoil favorite dog, than vice versa. User:Cú Faoil wanted revenge and started case on Igor Janev at META.79.101.88.30 (talk) 18:02, 28 December 2014 (UTC) Question: What you defined as Credible sources? On the List of Macedonian mention above 90 percent of articles do not have more credible sources than Janev sources. In Macedonia, credible sources are Macedonian Emigration Agency (as a government source), MIA, MINA, New Macedonia, Dnevnik, Večer, Makedonsko sonce, Makfaks. In each of them you have credible information on Igor Janev. I don't see why should he be treated with different standards than others? Again it is story about different or double standards.77.46.216.73 (talk) 19:40, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
Dear Mr. Wales,
I am not posting from my usual account - or even my usual Internet connection - because I fear the wrath of those I criticize.
It has been brought to my attention that there have been several very suspicious goings-on recently related to the ongoing Arbcom case about Gamergate. Most recently, a new user was indefinitely blocked, and appeal denied, as a result of participation in the case. The crime? A single edit to the Workshop page (nothing else pertinent shows up in the user's contribution history) attempting to introduce evidence that that user thought had been missed. The evidence in question is a simple breakdown of number of edits to the Gamergate controversy, by editor, intended to support claims of WP:TAGTEAM.
Now, that would be bad enough on its own, as a blatant contravention of WP:AGF. But then I looked up some of the surrounding discussion between admins about the decision. User:HJ Mitchell is involved in the Arbcom case in question, having proposed multiple findings of fact and not just doing janitorial duties there. User:5 albert square came into the discussion assuming that it must be a sock puppet account, and deciding that it must otherwise be a "troll" with the sole intention of causing trouble for Ryulong. Which, er, really makes no sense to me; the entire point of Arbcom proceedings, surely, is to establish the case that certain of the involved parties should be sanctioned; and it's only to be expected that everyone involved takes sides. That's no different from how anyone else has been conducting themselves, anyway. 5 albert square also personally thanks User:Ryulong (who, as is often noted in these sorts of discussions, has a very long history of Wikipedia infamy) in that exchange, which frankly looks incredibly suspicious.
sole intention of causing trouble for Ryulong
I have to ask, how can any Wikipedian - or any outside viewer - have any confidence in the system after witnessing such a blatant display of apparent cronyism? How are we supposed to believe that there is anything fair or equitable about the treatment of Wikipedians, when we witness Ryulong get off the hook for everything (including, for just one example, casting aspersions and using profanity in front of Arbcom), even as he brazenly flouts the system (per his own account of events, when he worried about a possible conflict of interest and appearance of paid editing after having raised funds via Reddit, he chose to ask them if contributing to that page was okay, rather than anyone on Wikipedia), while new users are immediately and indefinitely blocked for trying to point it out?
if contributing to that page was okay
I knew things were bad, but I never realized they were this bad.
69.159.80.46 (talk) 07:49, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
My apologizes for the thread above and how it spiraled out of control. I thought it was a funny comic (which I follow online) and was my way of wishing you a Merry Christmas...with a smile. :) There wasn't anything malicious about it, it was just funny. :) An editor obviously took it as a way to insult you, which I never intended and it exploded from there. I, again, apologize to you and to the editors who had to clean up the mess. It was never my intention. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 08:09, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
Igor has been very clearly id'd by behavior to a globally banned and editing pattern to User:Operahome but he now says he just stumbled across the article... total garbage.Legacypac (talk) 15:11, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
See here. He's been editing for 1 day and causing nothing but trouble. Legacypac (talk) 15:31, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
Bit late to the party here, but Igor the facetious xmas bunny did indeed confirm their identity with me. The user is in good standing, and I have no reason to suspect that they are also this banned user you speak of (though I admit I am not terribly familiar). GorillaWarfare (talk) 23:21, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
WMF still rocks - I was impressed to see that representatives of countries from Russia to the Czech Republic successfully met in Kiev to discuss the nuts and bolts of freedom of panorama legislation. (I can only make as much sense of the ru.wikinews report as Google can, but it appears no shots were fired!) If these people can travel into the middle of an authentic global crisis to have a productive meeting, they should be an inspiration to the rest of us. Wnt (talk) 21:56, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
Dear Jimbo Wales, HAPPY NEW YEAR!!! A new year has come! How times flies! 2015 will be a new year, and it is also a chance for you to start afresh! Thank you for your contributions! From a fellow editor, --Nahnah4 (talk | contribs | guestbook) 09:02, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
This message promotes WikiLove. Created by Nahnah4 (talk | contribs | guestbook). To use this template, leave {{subst:User:Nahnah4/Happy New Year}} on someone else's talk page.
Jimbo Wales,Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia. --I am k6ka Talk to me! See what I have done 15:15, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
I just could not resist. Cheers! bd2412 T 04:01, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
Jimbo Wales,Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia. NorthAmerica1000 10:56, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
Just squeezing in amongst all the noise, Jimbo, to wish you the very best for 2015. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 17:06, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
Dear Jimbo Wales, HAPPY NEW YEAR Hoping 2015 will be a great year for you! Thank you for your contributions! From a fellow editor, --FWiW Bzuk (talk) 19:32, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
This message promotes WikiLove. Originally created by Nahnah4 (see "invisible note").
A very happy new year to you and your family. I am writing to request unblock of my account, Vote (X) for Change. You have said that an initial ban should be for not more than one year [81] but this account has been blocked for five. 78.149.198.202 (talk) 10:21, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
This comes under the category "Non - controversial housekeeping". My IP was unblocked four years ago. 78.149.198.202 (talk) 10:54, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
The unblock was followed by a discussion and the consensus was unban. 78.149.198.202 (talk) 13:58, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
There's no confusion, Joe, and I don't think you're an expert on this. A community ban can be undone by the community at any time - it doesn't require BASC to do it. The discussion was right on this page and elsewhere - DoRD supported unban on his talk page. 81.178.199.75 (talk) 14:41, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
Joe, I'm not asking you to respond. This is Mr Wales' talk page. As for your good faith, asking me to respond and getting me blocked, how does that show good faith? You have twisted my words. I did not say that a talk page comment was a consensus. All comments are taken into account. [84]. As for misleading statements, you want diffs from me, so why don't you provide diffs supporting your claims yourself? How can an editor who was community unbanned be a sock, and do you have something against IP editors? Your DNFTT edit summary is way over the top. Courcelles put it very elegantly when he said
But we follow process in these discussions because the duty is so terrible, not in the clear and obvious cases, but in the tough ones. Because this is our highest and harshest remedy as a community, and three hour discussions do not allow the sobering thought that is necessary in the hard cases. Because of how hard this can be, we do not and must not take shortcuts in the easy cases, it must not become an easy thing to do in less time than it takes to eat a nice meal. Someone is going to haul me up on WP:IAR here, I can see it already. So be it. If there is one thing that we must preserve process for, it is the banning of a user. [85].
The four year - old discussion can be located, because it was triggered by the unblock, which will have been logged.
@Joe: I think the relevant link is WP:CBAN. If I can set your mind at rest, the editing landscape is very different from four years ago. I had a problem with an editor who liked to insert pet fringe views into articles. That editor was given a block warning by an administrator for claiming ownership of articles, promptly retired and later died.
@DoRD: I found it. Which archives did you search? 86.150.241.120 (talk) 17:32, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
Regarding the notices at the top of the talk page, I think they have been superseded. One says "you are indefinitely banned from editing the English Wikipedia under any account or IP address. Appeals, should you desire to make one, may be directed to the Arbitration Committee ...".
Note "indefinitely" means "until further notice", i.e. can be changed. Also "may" (my choice) not "must". Following the unblock of my IP it is apparent that it was changed. Also, following a request from Dozzzzzzzzzing off, the link is User Talk:DoRD/Archive 2#Showing you something I just wanted to be certain to make sure you saw. I am happy to stay away from AN and ANI. 92.25.65.245 (talk) 16:55, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
Lake Superior State University has published its list of banished words for 2015.
—Wavelength (talk) 03:48, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
Hello, I recognize that this has been raised time and time again, but might I suggest that some of the money the WMF currently has in its possession be directed towards some form of image filter? As it stands right now, any individual who looks for images of Queen Victoria's consort is liable to find themselves with a face full of penis and little Billy looking for images of an electric toothbrush may have to have a serious discussion with mommy and daddy about female masturbation. Surely this is not desirable.
People often go on about the implementation, but there are relatively simple methods to go about it. For instance, there is already a "bad image" filter for some explicit content that prevents them from being used for vandalism. Anyone attempting to add a tagged image to an article that is not pre-approved will find the image is hidden from view. I am sure it would be simple enough to create a "safe search" function akin to that used by Google, which prevents images with such a tag from being displayed in search results and can be toggled on and off with ease.
Other methods that could be employed include the use of administrative categories on articles and other content that would display a "NSFW"-style warning requiring the reader to approve viewing of the content as is common on countless sites with explicit content. Such tags and categories could be added manually or be added automatically by a bot when prompted by certain key words or based on image information, which would naturally be subject to review by a human admin to determine whether the tag or category is valid. I believe that would be a fine way to use some of the money currently being held by the Wikimedia Foundation. What do you say?--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 01:49, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
Neutron: Almost all computers have an 'off' button. Igor the bunny (talk) 06:54, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
OK, well...this is an old debate, but I'm game.
Define 'Porn'. Igor the bunny (talk) 08:04, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
I'll say it again, bunny. No one is suggesting we remove images of penises from Commons or Wikipedia. All the images of penises you may want will still be there, and all our medical articles will be illustrated with graphic penis pictures where helpful to the reader. The filter proposal is that we give you and all other readers the choice to not see them if that is your/their want. Should you go to Human penis with an intelligently-designed nudity filter enabled you can choose to see a penis illustration by simply clicking the blank rectangle where the image should be.
Again. All relevant (educationally useful) images will be on Commons and in our articles, as now. All readers who have opted-in to one or more of the image filtering options will be able to view a blanked image in an article or in a Commons search result by just clicking the blank rectangle.
As for how do we decide what images are filtered by a given filter option: there are multiple possible answers and all worth discussing, but there is no point discussing that question with someone who equates a filter with censorship and so won't be discussing that question in good faith. I'd be happy to discuss the question with anyone who recognises that filtering isn't censorship and that, rather than restrict our readers' freedom, it offers them more options. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 08:08, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
{{User:Jimbo Wales/image-blacklist/sexually-explicit}}
I don't know what this $60 million budget exactly refers to, but I propose some of it being used for countering government surveillance and initiatives by racketeering organizations that try to make the Internet less secure for everybody, and for countering attempts to censor Wikipedia itself. That would be more lofty goal than producing more filters for people offended by porn. (don't talk secrets) (talk) 09:40, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
The WMF had $60 million before that recent and rather annoying campaign. Now it probably has 80 million or more. Even Mr. Wales says: "I’m happy to inform you that our current fundraiser is the most successful in our entire history." 103.41.176.1 (talk) 16:56, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
Hi Jimbo, I hope you and your multitudinous talk page stalkers will please consider voicing your opinions at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Turn the MoodBar back on. I hope this isn't canvassing, because the only "opposition" to the MoodBar before it was turned off, as far as I can tell, was a technical need to remove it in anticipation of testing a Flow component which is no longer proposed for deployment. Please correct me if I'm mistaken. Thank you! EllenCT (talk) 17:13, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
That should actually be a "Defender of Jimmy Wales's foundation" star. Wikipedia and Jimmy's foundation are two different things. (Edit) On second thoughts, the latter would be inappropriate. Your inaction on our BLPs is leaving the foundation wide open to serious reputational and financial harm. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 07:15, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
Anthony, you are just being obnoxious. If you want to raise a concern, start your own thread, and do so politely if you want to get a reply. Don't hijack somebody else's comment for your own purposes. Don't start a second thread about the same topic as the one above. Jehochman Talk 16:07, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
I was wondering if anyone out there has heard about the former Miss America Bess Myerson dying. We've had her dead for the past two days on the say-so of an IP editor. I've just reverted as I can't find anything in Google News, but if I've missed something please accept my apologies and make her dead again. Coretheapple (talk) 21:44, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
And yes, I realize this is probably vandalism. I just think it's pretty amazing that we proclaimed this fairly well-known individual dead for two days. Maybe I'm not jaded enough to be used to this kind of thing.Coretheapple (talk) 02:37, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
Anthonyhcole and even Coretheapple overstate the case, but every time I look at this page I see more evidence that the basic governance system of WMF projects is flawed. Very straightforward, simple, adjustments of key issues - supported by 90% of the editorship - are almost impossible to make. The central problem IMHO is the consensus system for issues that need a large amount of input. An RfC for 3,000 editors simply does not work - we all just yell at each other. A concerted minority of 10% can high-jack the "discussion" and prevent almost any change. Any rule can be ignored - even our foundational principles. Any current rule can be twisted, so that Wikipedia now appears to stand for the opposite of what it used to stand for.
We need to begin the discussion on reform of the basic governance system. You, Jimbo Wales, could take a leading role in that. You could certainly ask the Board to begin the long process. I don't know what the reform will ultimately look like, but we need a governance system that will allow - even encourage - change in Wikipedia. We need a system that will be immune to the bullying by small minorities.
So, how about it Jimbo - are you in for fundamental change?
Smallbones(smalltalk) 02:34, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
Smallbones writes that the basic governance of WMF projects is flawed. I partly agree. The consensus model for policy changes in the English Wikipedia has become a roadblock to reform, because consensus is so broadly defined and so difficult to achieve that it won't happen, that any reform of English Wikipedia governance will come only from the WMF. Some editors have in the recent past proposed an on-line "constitutional convention" in which decisions can be made, consistent with WMF guidance, by simple majority.
However, more specifically, what is Smallbones saying needs to be changed? In the particular article in point, I don't see a real problem. Myerson was and is dead. Her death hadn't been confirmed, and is now reliably sourced. I don't see the need to lock down all BLPs on pending changes protection, for instance. BLP policy did work. Do we need better enforcement of BLP discretionary sanctions? Probably. However, what is Smallbones saying needs to be changed? What should Jimbo or the WMF be doing? Robert McClenon (talk) 16:58, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
RMc has lots of questions above and is asking for lots of specifics. I'll concentrate just on the specifics on how to start the process, recognizing that other specifics may work there as well. As far as specifics on what the biggest specific problems are ... please just read the archives of this page. Folks come here all the time saying something like "this problem is crucial to the future of Wikipedia and nothing can be done." And then nothing gets done. Maybe I'll list of few of these topics at the end - the ones that particularly interest me, but I'll suggest RMc (or anybody else) can come up with a list of a dozen issues pretty quickly. I don't want, however, for my list of specifics to be taken as some sort of "ultimate goal". I just want to say that our governance system is broken and somehow we need to start the process of fixing it.
How the WMF can get the process of governance reform started
1st - admit that there is a problem - big issues can't be solved. Major controversies that require surgery, are treated with band-aids.
2nd- the WMF should issue a statement saying that they have begun the process of governance reform. They will be consulting with academics, legal advisors, trusted editors, readers, the open information community, and other stakeholders to come up with proposals on how to best organize a governance system for the community.
3rd - various proposals that the Board believes will work are vetted by the editing community (but not necessarily approved via an RfC - if that system was expected to work, we wouldn't need governance reform!)
4th - the Board - on its own authority - writes the new "constitution" or governance system, with approval taking place over a 1 month period, on meta, essentially as a yes/no vote, open to any editor or reader.
As far as what specifics I think are wrong with Wikipedia now/the current governance system, just a quick list:
RfC, RfA, RfD, ANI, ArbCom, notability requirements, enforcement of rules against personal attacks and incivility, inconsistent enforcement of all rules, the size and opacity of our rules, treatment of women editors, treatment of newbies and BLPs, paid editing (still!) and advertising in articles, development of new technologies. I'm sure everybody has their own list to add.
Smallbones(smalltalk) 21:26, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
Coretheapple has suggested that I ask you why you think that flagged revisions / pending change protection is a good idea for BLPs. I will ask whether the WMF should have a role in implementing it if it is a good idea. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:17, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
During her decade out of the public eye, Lewinsky lived in London, Los Angeles, New York, and Portland, but due to her notoriety had trouble finding employment in the communications and marketing jobs for nonprofit organizations that she interviewed at. By 2014, she had still not held a full-time job since leaving the Pentagon in 1997. A stable relationship leading to marriage, which she reportedly desired, had also not happened.
According to WP:Lunatic charlatans and some media reports, you allegedly accused a group of holistic healers of being "lunatic charlatans" [91]. Could you confirm or deny this statement linked to your name? -A1candidate (talk) 18:08, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
It was said off wiki, it mentioned no specific Wikipedian user. It is not Wikipedia policy that people never engage in name calling in their regular life outside Wikipedia. Anyone who does not self identify as a lunatic charlatan can just assume he was talking about someone else.
This is yet another attempt to attack the actions of Jimbo without basis no matter what, and in this case those doing so are reaching further than ever before. The fact that this was months ago shows that they are reaching even further. I know it is in fashion to find any reason to criticize Jimbo, but this is really the weakest attempts to do so I have seen in a long while. Chillum 19:19, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
The section (as opposed as this discussion here) doesn't only deal with the AHA report. That statement isn't sourced to the AHA report, and doesn't intend to only reflect what the AHA meant; it's sourced to more recent comparative studies. The part of the section that deals with the AHA report reflects the statement of the AHA in a way the AHA suggests it should be represented. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 15:26, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
Jimmy (in case it's not clear from the above), regarding "...if A1candidate is misleading me, we should know that as well."
A1candidate is misleading you, at least on our use of the American Heart Association's statement on alternative approaches to lowering blood pressure.[93] The AHA statement grades the apparent efficacy of various alternative treatments (I helpful, IIa & IIb modest/neutral, III harmful) and the strength of the evidence for that efficacy (A strong, B moderate, C weak). At the bottom of table 1 (page 3) the statement recommends appropriate language for describing the different treatment effects.
The language recommendations for class IIb (TM is classed as IIb) are:
may/might be considered may/might be reasonable usefulness/effectiveness is unknown/unclear/uncertain or not well established.
We say,
A 2013 statement from the American Heart Association conferred a Class IIb, Level of Evidence B, classification to TM as a treatment for hypertension. This designation generally means that a treatment "may be considered in clinical practice" but that its effectiveness is "unknown/unclear/uncertain or not well-established".
A1candidate assumes that, because there are three suggested wordings, and three strength-of-evidence levels (A, B and C), the first suggested language should be used for treatments with strong (A), the second for those with medium (B) and the third for those with weak (C) evidence. The AHA grades the strength of evidence for TM as B, therefore, we should not use "unknown/unclear/uncertain or not well-established" to describe the efficacy of TM on blood pressure.
Since other efficacy columns in that table have only two suggested wordings and yet others have four, it is clear that the list of 3 suggested phrases for describing treatments classed as IIb does not refer respectively to the three grades of evidence strength, and any of the phrases or a combination of them may be used.
It is great to see you taking such a strong stand on this issue. Thank you. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 08:21, 8 January 2015 (UTC)-A1candidate
The AHA authors later explained that "most approaches have modest efficacy (not just TM)" [95]
"TM was found to modestly lower BP" is an accurate paraphrase of "The overall evidence supports that TM modestly lowers BP"
"It is fair and honest to say overall evidence supports a modest effect on BP"
"...our article is not even saying this."
"Our article does not even say that overall evidence supports a modest effect on BP."
...reviews have not found health benefits for TM exceeding those of relaxation and health education.
"[our article] claims that TM has no health effects whatsoever."
It is currently not possible to say whether meditation has any effect on health, as the research to date has been of poor quality,[10][11] including a high risk for bias due to the connection of researchers to the TM organization and the selection of subjects with a favorable opinion of TM.
What we won't do is pretend that the work of lunatic charlatans is the equivalent of "true scientific discourse".
The scientific community considers astrology to be a pseudoscience
The idea that If you can get your work published in respectable scientific journals - that is to say, if you can produce evidence through replicable scientific experiments, then Wikipedia will cover it appropriately. is only true if "appropriately" means "probably not at all." Science News editor-in-chief Eva Emerson recently pointed out "Peer-reviewed scientific journals, by one estimate, number 24,000. Each publishes numerous reports every year, adding up to more than a million." [96] (emphasis mine). Furthermore, much of what is published isn't actually the results of experiments (hence Global warming)... So Wikipedia should be thought of as a starting point for exploration, rather than truth or something like that. NE Ent 00:53, 8 January 2015 (UTC)'
This conversation is getting less and less about what Jimbo said and more and more about a content dispute that belongs on the talk page of the relevant articles. This may be the appropriate place to address what Jimbo said but it is certainly not the appropriate venue to settle a content dispute. Chillum 03:09, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
The article on Mark Satin is astonishingly good, even by Featured Article standards. I urge everyone to read it, or at least to skim it. I had nothing to do with creating this masterpiece (I made 3 tiny copy edits today). It illustrates the best that Wikipedia can achieve.
I hope I am not violating policy by posting to Jimbo's talk page without complaining about something.—Finell 02:49, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for talking sense on last night's BBC Question Time, if only rather briefly. It is rather disappointing when the chairman doesn't ensure that each of the guests gets the opportunity to be the first to answer a question. But at least there weren't any awkward gaps. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:07, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
"Question Time in Watford - 08/01/2015". For those in the UK: BBC iPlayer. A bootleg is currently available on YouTube. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 05:12, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
Hi Jimbo, I thought you, being a "digital champion of free speech", [98] might be interested in the discussion at ITN about the inclusion of a "Je Suis Charlie" image on the main page. The discussion can be found here: Wikipedia:In_the_news/Candidates#.5BRe-opened.5DAddendum:_Je_Suis_Charlie Everymorning talk 02:42, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
Per: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Adam (band)
Hey pointless PA removed. If I show without a doubt that it is notable, will you step down....or stop editing for 1 month? 750editsstrong (talk) 11:38, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Deletions_and_editor_retention
If deleted see this page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Thewhitebox#RFC
Thewhitebox (talk) 17:02, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
Studies show, editing on wikipedia is stagnating. I have been an editor off and on wikipedia for 12 years. Wikipedia has become less and less welcoming for new editors because of more and more deletion and speed deletion rules. There is a very negative company culture about new edits here on wikipedia. Editors who encourage deletion of good faith edits are rewarded, editors who fight against this trend are banned or leave in frustration.
Editors, especially new editors, are consistently treated like shit here by a like minded group of editors.
I have come to one sad conclusion: That Jimmy Wales, the founder of this site, is the person most responsible for this trend. He is most responsbile for this site's negative company culture. I believe that it is in the best interest of the long term future of Wikipedia that Jimmy Wales step down. I beleive wikipedia needs a new company culture that is more inclusive and kind.
If you have a better idea how to change this trend, something that has never been tried before, I would love to hear it.
Thoughts?
The greater resistance towards new content has made it more costly for editors, especially occasional editors, to make contribution. We argue that this may have contributed, with other factors, to the slowdown in the growth of Wikipedia.[99]
"Wikipedia has changed from the encyclopedia that anyone can edit to the encyclopedia that anyone who understands the norms, socializes himself or herself, dodges the impersonal wall of semi-automated rejection, and still wants to voluntarily contribute his or her time and energy can edit"[100]
Again, If I show without a doubt that it is notable, will you step down....or stop editing for 1 month? 750editsstrong (talk) 11:38, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
(This is followup to the discussion above. That section has gotten way too long, so I am starting a new one.)
The discussion has gone way off the mark, probably due to the fact that most of the people who are commenting are not very familiar with Wikipedia's medical domain. Many of the comments are not helpful.
The main difference between medical articles and other types of articles is that the medical literature -- even the reputable literature -- is enormous and very variable. It is possible to take nearly any bizarre assertion and find some peer-reviewed paper that seems to support it. Because of this, we have had to come up with more stringent sourcing principles than are applied in most parts of Wikipedia. Those rules are embodied in WP:MEDRS. Basically the rules say that in order to make it into Wikipedia, assertions have to appear in high-quality review papers, not just in papers that directly present experimental research.
The point is that sourcing quality makes up a continuum. At one end lie lunatics and charlatans, who present their claims on web pages, self-published books, and unreviewed journals such as Medical Hypotheses. At the other end lie authoritative review papers in high-quality medical journals. But there is a huge gap in between, filled largely with peer-reviewed primary research articles in journals that cover the whole range from crappy to excellent.
Many, many papers on holistic healing and alternative medicine fall into that intermediate range. They don't reach the level of source quality that WPMED looks for, but the authors are not by any means lunatics and charlatans.
At WPMED we have gotten pretty good at dealing with this problem. Our solution is simple: we consistently apply WP:MEDRS, which is very carefully written. When we say that something doesn't belong in an article, we aren't saying that it is wrong, and certainly not that it is lunatic, we are only saying that it has not yet reached the level of source quality that we need.
It does not help for people to go around flinging wild insults. I doubt that any of us believes that everybody who advocates massage therapy, acupuncture, chiropractic, or other forms of alternative medicine is a lunatic or charlatan. Making us look like fanatics does not help our project.
This applies particularly to the matter that started this discussion. We don't want to argue about whether the material that user:A1candidate would like to add is lunatic charlatanry. That isn't in the picture at all. What we should be arguing about is whether it is consistent with WP:MEDRS, and, if we want to take the discussion to a more "meta" level, whether the rules in WP:MEDRS are the right ones for us to be using. Looie496 (talk) 15:32, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
Given the above, this seems applicable:
The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding Complementary and Alternative Medicine, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.
Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.
—HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:34, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
A new set of official participation statistics are up, these for November 2014. These show the two key metrics for En-WP as essentially stable, with Very Active Editors steady at 2910 against 2897 for November 2013 and Average Number of New Articles Per Day falling 3.8% to 893 from a previous year figure of 928. The sky is still not falling. Carrite (talk) 11:37, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
I am asking that the following post, by an English Wikipedia arbitrator, User:Roger Davies, be considered by the WMF. I am commenting here because User: Jimbo Wales is the public face and a public voice of the WMF and has an open talk page. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk%3AArbitration%2FRequests%2FCase%2FGamerGate%2FProposed_decision&diff=642154916&oldid=642151661
I mostly agree, at least that ArbCom is being asked to do too much with too few resources.
First, if ArbCom is being asked to handle off-wiki harassment, then the WMF is placing itself at legal risk. Off-wiki harassment has civil and criminal implications, and should be handled by paid staff, not by volunteer arbitrators. If paid WMF staff finds that editors must be banned, WMF has the power, which it has used, to ban users globally.
The post then lists three areas where “the community has failed”: CU/OS (checkuser – oversight) responsibility; administrator misconduct; community ban appeals. It is true in an abstract sense that “the community has failed”, but the English Wikipedia community, as represented by those of its editors who take part in discussions, is a large, diverse, and fractious community that is not really capable of self-government. The fact that it almost does govern itself is an interesting experimental outcome that perhaps requires more explanation that its failures to govern itself. It is time for the WMF to lead or even to govern (it owns the servers), since asking the community to govern itself is asking what has been proven not to work. With regard to Oversight, in particular, the WMF should take that responsibility on itself, again, so that it does not place itself at legal risk, since the primary purpose of Oversight, which is really suppression, is to remove possibly defamatory or otherwise legally questionable posts. Checkuser supervision requires the same high degree of trust as is placed in the arbitrators, but other than the need for trust, there is no connection. If community ban appeals are a burdensome drag on the arbitrators, again, another group of trusted functionaries may be needed. The WMF should lead, initiate, or if necessary govern, rather than expecting “the community” to do what it has not done.
What the community can see is that ArbCom cases are time-consuming, and that the ArbCom is only able to handle a few cases at a time. In 2005 through 2007, the ArbCom was able to handle a hundred cases a year, until additional responsibilities were shifted to the ArbCom.
I have suggested in the past and will suggest again that the ArbCom should handle full evidentiary cases in panels of three, with the power to issue final rulings, from which there should be a right to request en banc rehearing, but no right to an en banc rehearing. That is my suggestion. Other reform suggestions may vary. In any event, the WMF should take leadership in areas where “the community has failed”.
Robert McClenon (talk) 19:11, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
Good Morning,
This discussion was just recently closed and due to discussion a guideline [was updated because of it ]. Since Wikipedia is the encyclopedia anyone can edit, and since this policy , in essense, makes it the encyclopedia registered users can edit, I thought you might want to be aware of it, and weigh in if need be. Thanks KoshVorlon Je Suis Charlie 12:02, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
Also, what you call "forum shopping" I call dispute resolution. Because Sysops are now involved, I can stir more drama up by attempting to bring this to arbcom, but you know what, that's too much damn drama, I figure , dropping a note on Jimbo's page, since he's the guy that started wikipedia, might get a more sane point of view. For the record, I have no dogs in this fight, I log on with my name , the two times I didn't, I identified myself in the edit summary, my argument is this, banning someone from making some kind of edit for any other reason other than the content of their edit is assuming bad faith, period, full stop, and it can't exist on Wikipedia. KoshVorlon Je Suis Charlie 18:11, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
I thought one of the advantages of having an account was that it functioned separately from IP addresses. In the past when I worked from school I would get a message saying the address was blocked but if I logged into my account I could edit. Now I can't. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Richardson mcphillips (talk • contribs) 14:16, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
Copy from here, to be sure you see it, as this is the nl-wiki tradition to hand out the media star
Romaine (talk) 11:54, 16 January 2015 (UTC)