User talk:Jimbo Wales

(Manual archive list)

"Meet the editors" blog post

Jimbo, I know that Wikipediocracy is not a site that you hold in high regard, but I wanted to draw your attention to a blog post that I wrote there. In it, I profile a Wikipedia editor who has self-identified as a pedophile and makes a fairly clear statement about their intentions on Wikipedia. I haven't had much success getting ARBCOM to act on similar reports in the past, so I thought I would see if this route worked any better. It has been up for almost a week now. I know Wikipedia editors have read it. The result so far? An anon IP editor alerted the user, who simply deleted the note and carried on editing. Are we really this blasé about pedophilia activism now? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 00:27, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

I've always been under the impression that pedophiles are to be banned on sight. I've reported a couple people over the years and they were silently blocked in short order. No longer the case? It certainly should be. Also, I don't know if it's logistical but if someone self identifies as a pedo we should be forwarding that information to their local police jurisdictions, imho. Even if they've done nothing illegal it might still be beneficial for law enforcement to be aware of the situation. Sædon^talk 05:25, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

There used to be a board you could go to for this very thing, where you could just make the report and allow those with experiance to look into the matter.--Amadscientist (talk) 06:55, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Now isn't that strange that a few trolls from the Arbitration Committee supported banning Malleus, but none seems to be interested in dealing with a self-identified pedophile. 67.169.11.52 (talk) 21:01, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Well if ARBCOM is no longer blocking these people then we need to start taking it to a more public venue, like AN. If we have a self-identified pedophile then hopefully an admin there would take the initiative. Sædon^talk 21:41, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

User:For An Angel has made a comment on my blog post, which says in part: "And if someone wants to ban me from Wikipedia because of what you wrote about me here I think they will see that the vast majority of my edits have been helpful and that I’m not doing anything wrong". I can only assume that they are right, since no admin has blocked them. I thought that having an editor who self-identified as pro-pedophilia and a "girllover" would be more of an issue. I guess no one else has a problem knowing that this is one of the most active editors of articles about young female actors and kids television shows. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 06:14, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Not to decipher anything from what anyone says, but For an Angel's comment definitely sounds like he does not disagree with either fact that he is a pedophile, nor that he is the same as the other account TheOriginalSoni (talk) 15:35, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

But I do disagree with Delicious carbuncle's accusations. I have never "self-identified as pro-pedophilia" or participated in propedophilia activism on Wikipedia or anywhere else. I hope that no admin would ban a user based on one person's false accusations. For An Angel (talk) 01:14, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

For An Angel, User:Metropolitan90 has deleted your userpage, apparently at your request. I have informed them of this discussion. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 04:05, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

For An Angel blanked both User:For An Angel and User:For An Angel/Wikipedia and tagged them with {{db-author}}. Normally, such a request is granted if indeed the requester is the sole author, per WP:CSD#G7. In addition, the user could have requested deletion of those pages per WP:CSD#U1 (user request to delete pages in their own userspace). I didn't review any of the prior versions of the pages before deleting them; I just checked the edit history to confirm that the requester was the sole author, and applied WP:CSD#U1 to delete the pages anyway. Until Delicious carbuncle informed me of this discussion, I was unaware of the past content of these userpages. If it is appropriate for the page to be restored under Wikipedia policy and guidelines (I don't know whether it is or isn't), any admin may do so. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:32, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

That sounds very reasonable. Now that you are aware of the situation, why don't you take a look at the content of that userpage as described in my blog post? And the content of User:Ospinad? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 04:44, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

I don't want to cover up the former content of For An Angel's pages from those who need to know what it was, but on the other hand I don't want to bring those pages back which would seem to endorse their presence on Wikipedia in their own right. So it's kind of a dilemma. Please leave me out of this issue; I have already authorized any other admin to restore these pages if necessary. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:54, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

I will put you on the list as declining to block For An Angel, but don't be concerned - I'm sure many admins have seen this thread and not acted. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 17:02, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Delicious: What "list"? You never asked me to block him. In fact, you asked me to restore two of his userpages. If you post anything on any other web site accusing me of failing to block For An Angel, I will pursue appropriate remedies against you. If you want For An Angel blocked, and he may well deserve to be blocked, go to an administrator noticeboard like WP:ANI and make your case there. Jimbo's user talk page is not the appropriate place to pursue this. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 18:18, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Metropolitan90, Jimbo's talk page is one of the most widely read pages on Wikipedia and I am sure that this thread has been read by many many people, including admins. I would have emailed ARBCOM with this information, but my experiences going that route have been mixed. Since For An Angel's pages have been deleted, I am limited in what I can say here, but the blog post that I made over a week ago makes the case very clearly and is easy enough for anyone with access to deleted pages to confirm. If you need to be asked to block For An Angel, consider this my request. Incidentally, what would the "appropriate remedies" be for stating that you declined to block this user? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 18:38, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

IIRC it was Elen who blocked the previous pedos I reported, maybe drop her a note? Sædon^talk 20:57, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Commons is broken - topless boys edition

I started a discussion on the Commons admin noticeboard about dozens of recently uploaded images of boyscouts that had been uploaded from Flickr by User:MaybeMaybeMaybe using a bot mechanism. Children are not able to give consent in the sense required by law or by COM:IDENT. The fact that many of these uploads depict topless boys is an additional COM:IDENT issue. Neither of these situations is well-covered by COM:IDENT, but it is a moot point since users uploading Flickr images via the bot do not seem to get any guidance about which images may or may not be acceptable on Commons.

Instead of deleting the images or looking at my concerns, I have been attacked, as usual, by User:Russavia and User:Mattbuck. To my surprise, User:Fæ has shown up to claim that I am accusing the user of pederasty. While I continue to believe that MaybeMaybeMaybe deliberately chose these images from the larger set of images because they showed topless boys (this run of 24 consecutive uploads of topless boys suggests it is more than coincidence), there is no reason why they cannot upload such images so long as they meet the rules of Commons. These images do not, which is why I started the thread. It was Russavia and Fæ who brought up insinuations about these uploads in order to attack me.

Pointing out problems on Commons is like being an unwitting actor in a theatre of the absurd performance. Is it time to shut it down and start again? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 22:17, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

This was my sole contribution to the topic:

Sigh - DC, please do what we have told you to do before time and time again - nominate images for deletion and/or talk to the user. There is no need for this topic at all other than you grandstanding. -mattbuck (Talk) 17:06, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

I did not attack you, I told you to use the processes Commons has in place for dealing with issues. You seem to have trouble doing this - your solution, on encountering a problem, is to

1. Create a topic here, on Jimbo's talk page on another project;
2. Create a topic on the Commons admin noticeboard.

Neither of these are appropriate fora for getting images deleted, or for facilitating Commons community discussions. Community discussions should take place at the Village Pump, requests that files be deleted should be done by deletion requests (the clue is in the name).

I speak the following as an individual, not a Commons admin - if you really cared about the issue, you would follow the advice that has been given to you (it has been given repeatedly, in several places). Instead, you just use each issue as an excuse to beat on Commons admins, for whatever reason.

You wonder why we don't take you seriously - it's because we don't believe you are being genuine, since you seem to be totally unwilling to actually discuss the issues, preferring instead to just attack Commons users. -mattbuck (Talk) 02:06, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Let's just note that Russavia, a bureaucrat on Commons last time I looked, is now advising DC to only edit Commons when stoned. This puts a whole new spin on the Commons precept that editors should be "mellow". Andreas JN466 02:15, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Mattbuck, I am more than willing to discuss the issues, that's why I started those threads on the Commons admin noticeboard, after all. Filing individual deletion requests is not discussing the issue. It is hiding the issue. I have tried your methods in the past with no success. It wasn't that I didn't get the result that I wanted, but I got the impression that Commons editors are largely apathetic with regard to process and governance issues. I have found that posting on Jimbo's talk page is actually a more effective way of getting images deleted than filing a deletion review. Russavia keeps a very close eye on this page and deletes anything that might be used to make Commons look bad. And my last thread on Commons was quite effective. Almost all of the copyright violations I mentioned have now been deleted, even these ones. It would be nice if someone would take a closer look at File:Sauna Jen 1.jpg, File:Sauna Jen 2.jpg, and File:Sauna Jen 3.jpg - these are copyright violations with bogus EXIF data, as I told Russavia in that thread. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 03:58, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

That interesting misrepresentation of Russavia's comment reminds me of an ANI thread I saw a couple weeks ago in which an editor accused someone of calling his edits "testicles" after rightly being reverted with an edit summary saying "That's bollocks". You'd have to be pretty severely autistic to take that comment literally, and as someone with PDD-NOS even I could tell at first glance it was an attempt at humor. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 06:19, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

I beg your pardon? For reference, Russavia wrote, "Please don't come to Commons, expecting a fight; which appears to be what you do. If you have to smoke a big, fat spliff to mellow out before coming here, then do so, because the problem you have on this project is the way that you approach issues. [...] But when you come to Commons, please leave that type of attitude behind, smoke a spliff and mellow out. Peace mon." The phrase "That's bollocks" is an established part of the English language, and has a widely accepted metaphorical meaning. Neither applies to the phrase "Smoke a [big, fat] spliff", and I believe you well know it. So take your contrived ad-hominems elsewhere. Andreas JN466 10:33, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

It was readily apparent to me that it was intended as a bit of hyperbolic humor, playing upon the trope of marijuana's calming effect (couldn't tell you whether that's actually true, I've never once tried it and have no intentions of doing so). The overarching message was basically "Chill and work with us, not against us", not a serious admonition to do marijuana before editing Commons. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 18:46, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

• Balance the bad against the good: As noted above, numerous photos can be deleted, eventually. Meanwhile, the same user had uploaded many Flickr photos of town scenes (with no shirtless boys there), so not every photo causes concern. The child-privacy photos can be deleted, yet we could keep the August 2011 photo of "File:Festung_Hohensalzburg_(6035853940).jpg" (Hohensalzburg Castle) as a stunning, dramatic photo which contrasts the architecture in Salzburg, Austria. Perhaps consider that any person might be your former friend, now The Third Man. As long as there are other people checking the image contents, then the whole will be kept in balance. -Wikid77 (talk) 05:17, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

That's all very well, but getting some Commons admins to delete mediocre and dubious sexual images is like trying to get water to run uphill. For example, File:Naser al-Din Shah slide 1.jpg (previously mentioned on Jimbo's talk page) survived a deletion debate despite a clear majority of delete votes and comments.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 07:42, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Deletion requests are not votes, and while the direction of consensus should be a guiding factor, it is not a deciding factor, especially when the comments go against policy. -mattbuck (Talk) 07:51, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Naser al-Din Shah slide 1, kept by Mattbuck as being of realistic educational value.

Let's just note that you are the Commons admin who kept that file, shown right, believing it to be of educational value. --Andreas JN466 10:38, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

I would hope that we didn't need to go through an administrative maze to ensure dubious photographs are deleted? If these photos are genuinely disturbing - and I would suggest an mass uploading of shirtless children means they are - then Wikipedia must delete them doktorb _words^deeds 08:10, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

A deletion request is not an "administrative maze", it's the system set up to discuss potential deletion of items which are not eligible for speedy deletion. As I mentioned, the clue is in the name - it's where you request that things be deleted. Again and again we have told DC to use this process, instead they just keep creating new righteously indignant threads on our admin noticeboard. -mattbuck (Talk) 08:29, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Mattbuck, I think there's a more important point here. Merely pointing people to the deletion process is not satisfying many of us who are neither prudes nor lunatics. I think that commons needs to reconsider policy here. The issue is human dignity and the treatment of people who have not given consent. That's an important enough issue that, at the very least, policy needs to accomodate speedy deletion followed by a deletion review in cases like this.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 09:08, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Individually I wouldn't say that there was any concern about the photos themselves as images. However, there are real problems with images of children being made available under a CC license where neither the parent, nor the child has given informed consent. This is a major problem as the subject, in this case children, effectively lose all control over the image. This is particularly so when the images are tagged 'topless', or 'shirtless' because as I pointed out, in the hatted section on Common, such tags are a magnet for those whose interests are not exactly wholesome. John lilburne (talk) 09:39, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

How about changing the rules on Commons so that any identifiable photograph of a child under 18 (which these clearly are) would be speedily deleted unless e-mail permission was available? These are not images that should be transferred from Flickr by a bot, as happened in this case.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 10:16, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

That sounds very sensible. doktorb _words^deeds 10:18, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Indeed, very sensible. I look forward to seeing someone attempt to get it past the commons admin corps! Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:41, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

And here is where such a proposal should go: commons:Commons:Village Pump/Proposals. Please do not add more self-righteous postings to the admin noticeboard. -mattbuck (Talk) 11:31, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Would you support such a proposal? If not, why not? And if yes, could I ask you to kick it off at the appropriate place? Thanks. Andreas JN466 11:50, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

While I sorta agree with the proposal, why should he kick off a proposals that others proposed? --Cyclopia^talk 11:55, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Because the last thing the proposer some editors here is are going to do is something constructive about it. Formerip (talk) 11:56, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

I've just gone ahead and made the proposal. Everyone's free to comment at Commons:Village pump/Proposals, of course. --Conti|✉ 12:01, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

We're not here because we're free, we're here because we're not free. There is no escaping reason, no denying purpose. *takes off his sunglasses* -mattbuck (Talk) 12:35, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

YEEEEEEAAAAAAHHHHHH! Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 17:11, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

I haven't decided if it's hate or love...but I feel strongly some emotion towards you for providing that clip. --Onorem♠Dil 14:36, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

The sooner we are chugging beer in a Commons Admin free world, and the sooner they realize that they have made themselves irrelevant, the better. John lilburne (talk) 12:39, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Amend that to "Commons-free world" and I can support your sentiments wholeheartedly. Graphics on WMF servers should be there to illustrate encyclopedia articles, not to warehouse pixels on some wack Bill Gates-meets-Citizen Kane mission to accumulate everything in the world that might be theoretically be someday useful to somebody, commercial or non-commercial, educational or non-educational. Until then, I'm gonna keep using the { {keep local} } template on my graphics uploads and encouraging others to do likewise. Carrite (talk) 20:57, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks to Conti for starting this proposal, but while such a change is welcome, it is not needed for the current case. Many of the images under discussion should be deleted simply by applying the current Commons COM:IDENT policy. Images of boys apparently taken in a pool changing room are not acceptable. Same for images taken inside a tent (the policy even uses this scenario as an example of a private place inside a public place). More importantly, as Russavia noted in his very first comment in the discussion I started: "there are COM:IDENT issues in that they appear to have been taken in Germany, where permission will be required for all use". He has not, of course, made any move to delete the files. Yet. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 15:03, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

I think we can all agree that COM:IDENT currently prohibits uploading a photo of an identifiable half-naked boy taken inside a tent without appropriate permission. We don't need a new policy that would completely prohibit photos of a large crowd outside the Vatican to handle that. It is unfair to hunt through all the new uploads to an entire project for weeks hunting for a set of images to complain about, then post about it, not by an appropriate deletion request, not on the project at all!, but outside the project, then blame people because they didn't delete the offending (but not illegal in Florida) image the second you complained about it. This is true for any image site on the Net - YouTube, Flickr, whatever - if you don't file a complaint with them about an image it's not going to get deleted in a hurry. Wnt (talk) 16:41, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Wnt, I know you operate in a different reality from everyone else, but where did anyone state, suggest, or imply that an image of a topless boy would be illegal in Florida or any other jurisdiction? Please stop with your inflammatory non-sequitors in every thread that I start, and referring to me as the "High Inquisitor". Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 17:12, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Wnt has a point here though. It seems you are far more interested in stirring up dramatics than launching deletion discussions. Personally, I am not surprised that when you say "jump", others reply with "piss off". While you have a point in this case, it becomes difficult to side with you when you choose to be so adversarial. Resolute 17:24, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

If it is "adversarial" to bring issues to the admin noticeboard so that they can be dealt with, then I am adversarial. I have done more or less the same thing here and it almost always leads to editors working with me to address the issue. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 18:17, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Again and again, we tell you, neither Commons admin noticeboard nor Jimbo's en.wp talk page are not the appropriate places to ask for images to be deleted or to demand new policies. You were directed to the right place time and again, your continued refusal to bring up problems where you have been told they should be brought up leads to the inescapable conclusion that you are interested in trolling rather than the issues. -mattbuck (Talk) 21:59, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

No, Matt, I am not interested in "trolling" - I'm interested in getting results. It is quite simply bizarre that you would consider my attempts to inform the community about issues on Commons as "trolling". This is trolling in the same sense that someone who tells you that your car's headlight is not working is trolling. You don't have to thank them, but telling them that they need to put their comment in writing or you won't fix your headlight is not a useful response. If you look at my contributions on Commons you will see that I do nominate images for deletion if it is the image that is the problem. When the issue is more general or involves multiple images and multiple users, that is not helpful. It is actually harmful, since it tends to obscure the problem. I have no doubt that I will be indef blocked on Commons if I keep bringing issues to the community's attention trolling, but that is not my goal. In the short term, I would be happy to see a few simple reforms enacted. The longer term is unclear, because Commons is so broken that it probably needs to be completely rethought and started over. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 22:19, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

If your purpose is to nominate for deletion the photos that violate Commons policy, then you are nearly there. Nominating them, even publicizing the nominations when they don't get proper attention, is a respectable volunteer activity. If your purpose is to prove that "Commons is broken" and should be shut down because it doesn't instantly, without being asked, delete photos that are not illegal (my point with that is not to imply they are, but to suggest that great haste is not formally required) then that is just ridiculous. There's not a publicly editable site on the Web that isn't "broken" by that definition. Wnt (talk) 04:18, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Wnt, thank you for your validation. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 04:36, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

I wouldn't classify your actions as trolling either, but WP:POINTy might fit. If I may ask, have you actually proposed any of your hoped for reforms to commons' village pump? Or is your only strategy to run to daddy Jimbo? Resolute 14:15, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Fae has emailed the person who made the pictures, and - unsurprisingly - they do not want the pictures on commons and are in direct violation of commons policies. [1] Can an admin on commons please delete all these pictures? Now? --Conti|✉ 16:44, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

I guess we can add that to the list of reasons why these images should be deleted. I wonder if it is long enough yet? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 17:04, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

They've been deleted. Thanks to 99of9 for requesting their deletion, Fae for enquiring with the photographer, and russavia for closing the requests. --Avenue (talk) 08:36, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

... and to Conti for starting the Village Pump proposal, to FormerIP for chipping in, and to Delicious carbuncle for highlighting the issue and getting additional eyes on the situation ... without which none of this would have happened. Andreas JN466 12:43, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Maybe, but perhaps all it needed was for someone to follow the usual procedure and actually nominate the photos for deletion. Of course that doesn't fit the "Commons is broken" storyline that some persist in pushing here. --Avenue (talk) 13:14, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

When a web site under the auspices of the WMF has a culture where the local yokels think it is perfectly ok to swipe Flickr images of half-naked children without their parent's/guardian's permission, then yea, "broken" is a quite fitting description. Tarc (talk) 13:31, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Now, now, Tarc, be civil. Are those "perfectly ok" photos the ones that I mentioned had been deleted a few posts above? --Avenue (talk) 14:10, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

The photos were well over the line and were rightly deleted. There has been an attempt to whip up a dramafest over this, but it is time to move on. The lesson is that COM:PEOPLE issues should be sorted out before uploading images, not afterwards.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 14:18, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

The problem is that this is just one example, and there are thousands of others just like it. COM:IDENT is routinely ignored in Commons. In my experience, an individual DR without attendant drama stands no chance of being successful. Here is one I made earlier: [2]. Very clear message from the Flickr account holder that she does not want her images on Commons because of COM:IDENT issues. Kept by the admin. This one had to be nominated six times, even though the photographer made it abundantly clear that the models were absolutely horrified to have these private images on Commons. The files were only deleted after a long Commons-l mailing list thread in which a WMF board member and several WMF staff members got involved. This is too much bloody effort just to get people in Commons to do the right thing, and that is why the Commons administration is indeed broken. Andreas JN466 15:35, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

(ec)Yes, they were deleted after a bright spotlight was aimed into the cockroaches lair. The point is, it never should have come to this in the first place. Someone puts his own pictures in his own Flickr stream, and some Commons yahoo comes along and copies them. How long would it have been before they were categorized into commons:Category:Male toplessness ? Or were they in their already prior to deletion? Click on that link right now, but make sure to tilt your screen to the side if you're at work. Tarc (talk) 14:21, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

There is something I don't understand: Werent' these latter photos Andreas is discussing already public on Flickr under a CC license, or not? Because if these photos were publicly accessible under a CC license, all this discussion is nonsense: copyright allows us to do whatever we want provided we comply with the license. If they didn't want their pics public, they shouldn't have uploaded them.--Cyclopia^talk 16:36, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

COM:IDENT is a separate issue from copyright, and Flickr is such a rummage sale of images that the licenses should be taken with a pinch of salt anyway. Best practice is to ask the uploader for permission beforehand, particularly if children are involved.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 17:14, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

What Ian said. The issue is not one of copyright, but one of subject or parental consent for pictures taken in a private context, per commons:COM:PEOPLE. If you take a picture of a 12-year-old boy in a swimming pool changing room, or an upskirt shot of a five-year-old girl, then you are the copyright holder, but you do not have subject consent for hosting the image on Commons (which in this case means parental consent). To have your image on Commons, you need both (in theory at least, though not in actual practice). An additional complication is that many of these cases are transfers of anonymous Flickr uploads. Frequently, the accounts who put the images on Flickr end up blocked there shortly after, because they lied about being the authors, having in fact grabbed the images from elsewhere, like family holiday blogs. Commons however usually insists that all that is needed is that the images were available on Flickr with a CC licence on a given day, regardless of whether the Flickr account has since been suspended, and in my experience Commons admins will not entertain subsequent challenges on copyright grounds. (This is known as Flickrwashing.) Andreas JN466 17:35, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

That reads like the defence that was put up by the perverts and predators that were defending creepshot and jailbait on reddit. Congratulations in importing the nonsense here. John lilburne (talk) 22:29, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I was not clear. I was not talking of the kids' pics. I was talking about the other deletion discussions JN466 linked, like this. Yes, if these pictures weren't uploaded by the authors, then it's different. But if they were indeed uploaded by the author, as it seems from this diff, then the author can complain how much she wants, but still she has no right to ask us to remove the pic. She should have thought about this beforehand. --Cyclopia^talk 22:37, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Read http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Resolution:Images_of_identifiable_people and commons:COM:PEOPLE – Commons is supposed to be so ethical as not to host images taken in a private location without the consent of the people depicted in them, and certainly not over their strenuous bloody objections. Wikimedia's mission is not to make image authors miserable by appropriating, against their will, the images they took in private locations. Andreas JN466 23:30, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

"They've been deleted." No, they haven't - Russavia deleted only the ones which were specifically mentioned in the original thread. When I pointed out that there were more, his response was "I have deleted 24 images. As far as I am concerned, that is all that is covered by my close....take them to DR". When I questioned this, he closed the discussion with the edit summary " there is nothing more to do here", but then thought better of it. Why a deletion request closure for a single image can be applied to 24 images but not the remainder of the images is a mystery that I will leave for the reader (hint: Russavia is only interested in protecting Commons from criticism, not actually addressing any of the problems, and is really more interested in trolling than anything else, which is why he started uploading Flickr images of topless children after I started the discussion. Oops. I guess I spoiled the mystery). Although I used the example of MaybeMaybeMaybe's uploads to highlight the issue of COM:IDENT and children, I don't have any quick way of identifying those images out of the literally thousands (yes, thousands) of images uploaded by him with the Flickr upload bot in the last few days. I did helpfully point out that some could be found in the Commons category "Topless boys", but even those have yet to be deleted. If anyone continues to think that the problem here is that I personally haven't filed a deletion request, they are missing the big picture. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 16:55, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Well, in fairness, it does make you look a bit foolish, although how much of a problem that really is is not for me to say, obviously. Formerip (talk) 21:13, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

What on earth kind of ill-informed comment is that? How is pointing out that there is a problem on Commons that the Commons' admins are unable/unwilling to address unless forced to "foolish" ? Tarc (talk) 21:23, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Trouble is, that's a hypothetical question.

The OP linked to a discussion where they had identified images in likely breach of Commons policy. The problem was immediately recognised, the images were nominated for deletion and then deleted. Commons may be broken, fine or it may need oiling, but this has been a badly botched illustration. Formerip (talk) 21:27, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Two things, FormerIP. One, I don't mind looking foolish. Two, your summary of the situation is completely and utterly wrong. For one thing, some unknown number of those images have yet to be deleted. For another, it was Conti's post on COM:AN which got the images deleted, presumably alerted by this discussion. By the way, thanks Conti, for this and for starting the discussion at the Village Pump. Good luck. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 00:02, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

DC, the files were nominated for deletion around 1 pm UTC on 27th. That's nine hours before you started this discussion, so I don't think the causal link you suggest can be all that real. The votes were almost all unanimous and it was actually your pal Fae who precipitated the early closes by positively establishing a lack of consent. The thing that's really broken here is your glasses.

For clarity, when you say "some unknown number of those images have yet to be deleted" do you mean that you know of further problematic images, or just that it's not impossible? Formerip (talk) 00:16, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Whether it is or isn't a good example is irrelevant. As Andreas says above " Frequently, the accounts who put the images on Flickr end up blocked there shortly after, because they lied about being the authors, having in fact grabbed the images from elsewhere, like family holiday blogs. Commons however usually insists that all that is needed is that the images were available on Flickr with a CC licence on a given day, regardless of whether the Flickr account has since been suspended, and in my experience Commons admins will not entertain subsequent challenges on copyright grounds.". In other words, what is actually needed - and has been for some time - is some Commons admins living in the actual real world and possessing some clue, and quite frankly there appears to be a particularly high number at that location that are failing on both criteria. Black Kite (talk) 00:45, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Actually, I think whether or not it's a good example is the main issue. I'd guess no-one would doubt that Commons processes could be improved, although exactly how bad they are is a question shrouded in hysteria on the one side and defensiveness on the other. What I wonder is whether the best approach is to spin bullshit. And, if you do, whether you should make sure you don't fall on your face. Formerip (talk) 00:54, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

It's only not a good example because of Fae's quick actions. But even then one could argue that the first admin with clue who saw that collection of images (via the deletion request or wherever) should have nuked them on the spot. That would have happened here - why can it not at Commons? And even in the discussion we above we have idiotic statements like "Werent' these latter photos Andreas is discussing already public on Flickr under a CC license, or not? Because if these photos were publicly accessible under a CC license, all this discussion is nonsense: copyright allows us to do whatever we want provided we comply with the license. If they didn't want their pics public, they shouldn't have uploaded them.". I'm not entirely sure why we allow anyone with that attitude to edit at all, although at Commons nothing would surprise me. Black Kite (talk) 01:03, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

The apparent lack of an effective speedy process for this type of image is something that's being constructively discussed on Commons at the moment. And I agree its an issue. But that's rather separate from the thesis of OP, which is the same ol' "look at these disgustin' images, Common's won't do nuttin' about it, where's my gun?". You jumped it is the answer to that. All we have here is a null hypothesis.

Dumb comments on Commons are also not the issue. We also get those here, quite a lot. In both cases, discussions are a sausage machine and the only thing to consider is what comes out. Formerip (talk) 01:14, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

The problem is that everything at Commons appears to be discussions rather than actions. There are situations, of which this is one, in which Commons admins need to be seen to fixing problems rather than talking about them. However, if an efficient speedy process for this type of thing does emerge, then all well and good. But I won't be holding my breath given some of the comments from Commons admins above. Black Kite (talk) 01:18, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Problem solving

Hello Mr Wales,

May be stupidly but Can you help please? --Esc2003 (talk) 23:30, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Maybe. Certainly it is funny and unnecessary as a Steward is already involved in the case. --E4024 (talk) 12:17, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

E4024 insanların sinirlerinin gerildiği bu türde bir konuya gülmeni ayıplıyorum. Çok ayıp.--İncelemeelemani (talk) 19:26, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

The post above you quickly dismissed is hardly funny nor is it unnecessary. Stewards have been consistently ignoring the issue since July and people have been more than frustrated. So far only one steward have shown interest recently (yesterday) and an extra pair of eyes or ten is more than welcome on the problem. The RfC discusses the issues in greater detail. -- A Certain White Cat ^chi? 12:54, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

I think, it's not funny and unnecessary. There's an admin oligarchy on Turkish Wikipedia. It can be useful when you take a look on meta. --Cemallamec (talk) 18:13, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Looks like there's a consensus forming that it's not funny, so it's just as well I resisted the temptation to quip that "I see it's not only the English Wikipedia where admins receive abuse". --Demiurge1000 (talk) 20:16, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Dangerous situation in Turkish Wikipedia

• Hi Jimbo Wales. I want to report which is occured in Turkish Wikipedia. In July 2012 5 administrators that called "Memorandum of the Quintet" (Vito Genovese, tr:Kullanıcı:Eldarion, Mskyrider, Kibele, and Elmacenderesi) blocked 4 users (Seksen iki yüz kırk beş, Bermanya, Rapsar, Stultiwikia). Community of Turkish Wikipedia (including me and a few administrators) against this action and they opened Rfc. Almost everyone support that this blockings are unfair. Also community wanted that "Removing administrator rights (Wikipedia:Requests for de-adminship) will be introduced to Turkish Wikipedia", "built Arbitration Committee" and "Vote of Confidence". These proposals were accepted by community however stewards did nothing. Also in this process, a few users blocked because of their comments. Their comments didn't contain profanity or insult they contained only criticism. Then yesterday, I applied one of the community's decisions which is about unblocking 4 users. Then Kibele reblock these 4 users and then Vito Genovese blocked me because of abuse of administration rights. Then many users againsted this action and they blocked, too. Probably they continue this. Please help Turkish Wikipedia community the situation is very dangereous. For months, Turkish Wikipedia wasn't develop even they decrease. Best regards and good afternoon.--Reality 17:33, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Note: m:Requests for comment/Sysop abuse on the Turkish Wikipedia--Reality 17:34, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

I think Turkish Wikipedia is suffering an adaptation of McCarthyism where we see hidden discussion among sysops/admins that determine exactly what will happen to who.

• Admins can privately discuss and ban a user (with no block history) without a single shred of evidence or warning.
• Same admins can then also block three users (two indefinitely, one for six months) objecting to this ban and insist on enforcing this ban.
• All this is despite the level of objection present on the meta RFC mentioned above which tr.wikipedia sysops did not bother to participate.

-- A Certain White Cat ^chi? 17:51, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Is this WP:OUTING?

As it's vaguely pertinent to the ongoing arb election, do you Jimbo agree that knowing an editor's first name and their country of residence (or more accurately, surmising it from a Wikipedia account name and residence userbox), is a sufficient amount of personally identifying information that it can be hidden from the community, under the justification of WP:OUTNIG?

I only ask because this is what arbitrator Elen of the Roads seems to believe, and she and others are running around blocking and reverting whistleblowers. The person she is protecting had dumped that account and resumed editting with a new one, in an area where several other editors with similar bahavioural records have started to be topic banned under discretionary sanctions, or retired having seen the writing on the wall (only after many years I might add).

I find it strange that Elen would take such an aggressive approach to a completely implausible risk of outing (and use blocks and threats to suppress even the very mention that she's doing it), at the cost of witholding vital information to WP:AE admins and allowing this user to be examined by AE in the same way his colleagues have, ie with the full behavioural record known and examinable in reference to the others (for obvious reasons).

Thanks to Elen, this user has effectively whitewashed a huge chunk of ther past history. She's given various excuses for this error, probably because at heart she knows she's made a mistake by possibly taking someone else at their word that this user's old account was an OUTing risk, and not investigating the issues for herself. She has previously stated it's all right because he was under no active sanctions at the time of the switch, which is I am sure you can appreciate, totally irrelevent when it comes to reviewing long term patterns of behaviour in a venue like AE.

It's strange because apparently she is the same person who seemed to have no qualms about passing on information posted to a mailing list. Everywhere I go I see people singing her praises and claiming she's the salt of the Earth and would never do a thing wrong. If only she allowed the facts about this case to be known. Perhaps you, Jimbo, are the only person with sufficient gravitas to get a proper explanation from her as to why she's doing this, without being subjected to a block and having your complaints censored. KLP479 (talk) 20:14, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Worth noting that this is the first and probably the last post by this account - clearly a sockpuppet. Prioryman (talk) 22:03, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

KLP479, if there is any whisteblowing of substance, it'd be best to email me privately, including diffs and actual proofs. Vague allegations posted by a sockpuppet account aren't really easily actionable. From what you've said so far, I'm not that impressed. (By the way, I have no idea what you are talking about).--Jimbo Wales (talk) 09:21, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm afraid diffs wouldn't make much sense in this situation, due to how it's evolved (over many years) with much of what is said in public now being pretty much cryptic to observers who don't know the full story. The pertinent facts about it are as follows:

• User A was active in a contorversial area for many years
• Having collected a few blocks, User A 'retires' and stops editting
• User B appears, and resumes the same behaviour as A
• It become obvious to some that A=B
• B is asked to publicly link his new account to his old one, as policy demands
• He refuses
• There's lots of dispute at ANI etc
• As it turns out, the fact that A's account name contained his real first name and he'd put a home country userbox on his user page, he apparently realises with the help of some off-wiki communication with User:Alison, that he can claim that he made the switch to protect his identity (basically the only way such a switch can be legitimately hidden from the community)
• B settles on this as his justification for not linking the two, although it's clear to those who care from his earlier statements that this never was his initial motive, and they know full well that a first name and country does not remotely represent an actual risk of OUTing
• There remains no acknowledgement from B that he was A
• Admins at places like ANI just do nothing whenever its mentioned, simply on the basis that Alison occasionally unretires to repeat the OUTING claim and also perhaps because the topic is so controversial they're just conditioned to ignoring the whole thing whenever it comes up. Alison never of course states what actual data this is based on - a simple first name and country of residence), so a cycle develops where anyone new to it either loses interest due to the complexity of even explaining what happened, or otherwise just takes Alison at her word
• Other editors who behave the same way as A, but have never benefitted from this type of history whitewashing, after so many years of subtle gaming and POV pushing inevitably eventually come to the notice of admins who work AE (the topic in question having been the subject of discretionary sanctions for many years), and start to receive topic bans, or retire having seen the writing on the wall for their preferred style of editting
• B continues to pretend he has no prior account (and thus in comparison after a few years as 'B' and haivg learnt how to avoid obvious blocks, now looks like an account in good standing) even to the point of trying to assist his colleagues at AE who were never able to whitewash their history in the same way. To anyone who knows that A was B however, the deception this represents is clear given that they remained interested in the same topic and thus articles and disputes
• I made my latest attempt to highlight this deception once I saw B at AE, and this is when Elen got involved and basically covered the link up with blocks and intimidation
• As far as I can gather, Elen has either taken Alison's claim there's an OUTINg risk as read, or worse, she's taken B's word for it, or she just doesn't care and wants to continue to protect B for reasons other than OUTing while maintaining OUTing as the publicly stated reason because it's the only one that fits any actual polcicy (she for example once said that he has no need to link the two as he was not blocked or under sanctions at the time of the switch, which is of course categorically not what the relevant policy says about it)
• Having noticed what she's done with the mailing list and seeing everyone paint her in a saintly light, I decided to have one more try at having this error rectified by posting here

At the end of the day, all you need to do to act on this complaint is just ask Elen if she recalls this dispute. If she says yes, then ask her why she's protecting B when the information contained on A is clearly not an OUTing risk. If she says no, then I can email you the actual account names of A and B to see if she recalls. Such is the abuse it represents, I'd put money on this being overturned and the accounts being linked per policy if anyone ever actually interrogated her about it, but of course given her position that's been practically impossible for ordinary editors (and as I'm sure you know and Prioryman has so intellectually shown, "SOCK"s can do absolutly nothing on Wikipedia at all, even if they're trying to expose a major major scandal, rather than just a mid-level abuse like this). KLP479 (talk) 19:15, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

This A and B stuff is utterly worthless. Either e-mail Jimbo as requested or spill it here. Tarc (talk) 20:02, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Wouldn't that leave him open to accusations of WP:OUTING himself? Ken Arromdee (talk) 20:36, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Emailing me, or ArbCom, with concerns of this nature, naming names, is not WP:OUTING.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 01:22, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

• I would have said this was a sock of User:MickMacNee but it's too polite so it's probably User:Hackneyhound. This concerns an instance where an account was renamed because the editor had concerns that they could be identified in real life from the original account. The editor in question has been repeatedly harrassed by socks. Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:55, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Count_Iblis/WikiLeaks  :) Count Iblis (talk) 22:59, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Iblis, I'm damn fine sure the sock isn't Brews Ohare Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:56, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

I know, but the issue of whisleblowers came up a few times in this discussion... :) . Count Iblis (talk) 02:23, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Do you consider image and template pages to be content?

Fawn, bow, crawl, ingratiate.... "I am not worthy." - "Please grant this humble editor an audience."

But seriously, do you think image and template pages should be categorised alongside article pages? For example:

• Category:Pigs has one image in it
• Category:Homeschooling has a WikiProject template bunged in it - even worse it has a sort order giving it an unnecessarily high importance
• File:World-Fit-logo-childhood obesity programs - kids fitness programs - school fitness programs.png is single-handedly cluttering a whole bunch of content categories
• Category:Jimi Hendrix has a template in it
• Category:Ports and harbours of Pakistan - contains three random images (and they are unrelated to the category)

I consider images and templates to be the building blocks of articles. The Reader likes to read articles and likes to find articles in uncluttered categories so the stuff of no or little interest to them should be elsewhere. There are no clear guidelines on this issue and the unwritten convention, especially in the popular and fashionable side of Wikipedia, shows that images and templates not mixed in with content pages. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 01:07, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Whatever the unwritten convention may be, you have tried to get a written convention instead, and this backfired: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Categories/Archive 3#Image categorisation ended in July 2012 with the conclusion that "the discussion establishes consensus that image files - at least those that are hosted on Wikipedia - should be categorized on Wikipedia. " Note also that on e.g. Category:Obama family, the files are grouped separately from the articles, so they don't clutter the category, they add value without interfering with the articles. See also Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Request to lift a topic ban for background. Fram (talk) 08:16, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

For what it is worth, I think there are good reasons to avoid having categories that mix articles, templates, images, wikiprojects indiscriminately. One reason is that many people are interested in using the data in our categories to do useful things, and having those things all mixed together isn't helpful. There is a reason why category pages have an editable text section at the top: this is often the right place to add links to (for example) wikiprojects. Fram is right to cite Category:Obama family as a good example of the right way to do it for media files.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 09:26, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

The mentioned WikiProject is actually on the talkpage of the category which is the common way of projects to signify their interest in a particular category, stopping that would be a blow against collaborative editing. The Category:Obama family category refered to as a positive way shows that the software makes that distintion, so there is no need to worry about having images and articles mixed together. Agathoclea (talk) 13:28, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Do these pages need the NOINDEX tag?

Maybe its me but I'm not seeing the benefit of NOINDEXing Jimbo's user page or this talk page. The tag on this talk page was added way back in 2011 [3] and the tag on his user page was added a few months ago by an IP. None of these edits were discussed. I don't know about anyone else, but I don't think we should hide these pages from search engines. As the founder of Wikipedia, Jimbo's user page and talk should be open and accessible to those who want to find him. What is a good rationale for NOINDEXING these pages? ThemFromSpace 01:36, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I was surprised to see the NOINDEX tag. I don't think it is a biggie so it is should be up to Jimbo to decide. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 01:43, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

User talk pages on the English Wikipedia are not indexed by search engines unless the {{index}} tag or __INDEX__ magic word is added to them. Graham87 06:05, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

I don't have a strong opinion here, but I think there's no good reason to treat my user talk page as different from anyone else's. Nearly anyone who would think to look for it in the first place, would know how to find it.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 09:29, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Would you be fine reindexing your user page and keeping this talk page unindexed, per the status quo? ThemFromSpace 18:35, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

• Beware NOINDEX might not work any longer: There has been recent discussion at wp:PUMPTECH on how the _NOINDEX_ (double-underbar) tag does not stop Google Search (or others?) from indexing a page, as in prior years. I did, in fact, confirm the shocking non-operation, weeks ago, that _NOINDEX_ was "broken" and could not be used to stop a page from indexing search phrases for Google Search. Currently, it seems that this talk-page is properly noindex'ed, containing the internal HTML tag:

<meta name="robots" content="noindex,follow" />

The keyword "noindex" is seen by Google, and so this talk-page does not match within Google Search. Adequate current index testing, for both articles and talk-pages, could consume 1-to-3 hours, so I did not retest article indexing recently. Also, WP's own internal wikisearch (the right-side Template:J box) temporarily stopped re-indexing articles circa Template:J 2012, for several days as it has delayed re-indexing in the past. Hence, just consider all search-options as iffy, questionable features during recent months. Meanwhile, people are investigating, and working on numerous other improvements as well. Also, we have asked them to slow down to a pace to have more-predictable updates. So, the chaos in operations is being discussed. -Wikid77 (talk) 16:46/17:50, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

I'll donate, but please can these happen first?

Dear Jimbo / WMF / anyone who can help:

1. If an op can bring a linkbot into the #wikipedia-en channel, I will donate $25 upon successfully testing said linkbot in said channel. #wikipedia-de gets to have a linkbot, so why must we miss out?

2. If you speak at the Kansas State University Landon Lecture series on or before Valentine's Day, I will donate a further $200 to the Foundation. However, if it takes place later in the spring semester, I will donate $100.

I have found Wikipedia indispensable all throughout the years so I hope all these can be done if you would like my help.

Thanks kindly, --129.130.37.150 (talk) 05:16, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

• Umm... perhaps I'm wrong, but I don't think it's appropriate to ask Wikipedia to do something for you--particularly your second request--in exchange for donation money. Greengreengreenred 05:33, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
  • ^. --129.130.37.150 (talk) 05:43, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
    • Because it's undignified, rude and pretentious. — raekyt 05:48, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
    • ^{To that, as well.} --70.179.167.78 (talk) 06:33, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
    • It is true--well, as far as I know, it's true--that there isn't a Wikipedia policy about this specific request (though I have not read through all of the policies, so I may be wrong). However, not being in the Wikipedia policies does not make something appropriate for Wikipedia. It's wonderful that Wikipedia has been indispensable for you, and I'm sure it would be cool if Jimbo came to your college's lecture thing, but, IMO, it's not appropriate to have strings attached to donation money. The only thing Wikipedia should do for those who donate money is the same as what it does to everyone: provide the public with notable, informative, encyclopedic articles, free for anyone to edit. Wikipedia shouldn't have to come to the Landon Lecture Series in order to raise the money it needs to survive. Greengreengreenred 08:20, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

• See WP:Bounty board to post your proposals! This is acceptable behavior from donors. Any method that gets Wikipedia donations and doesn't involve giving up POV or having editors with a financial conflict of interest about a specific topic should be OK, as far as I know. Wnt (talk) 20:24, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

As cost-effective as it might seem for me to spend my time flying around the world to pass "GO" and collect $200, I fear that I'm not available before Valentine's Day to come to Kansas.  :-) --Jimbo Wales (talk) 09:32, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Whenever you do get around to coming to lecture in Kansas, as anywhere else, you could, at least in theory, ask for the audience to pass out donations while your assistants pass around collection buckets as many fundraisers around the world do quite often. In this way, you would make the WMF way more in each lecture than the $100-$200 originally pledged. And during that donation solicitation portion of the lecture, a screen behind you could show: "You may also make donations from your phone at http://m.wikimedia.org/donate (or the actual mobile URL that receives donations.) This is an idea I share that may save WP and the WMF, so good luck and hope it all works out! =) --70.179.167.78 (talk) 11:08, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

I think most of us have the impression that all we have to do is load the harpoon in the backyard ballista and wait a few months until Jimbo flies overhead. This also works for Santa Claus. Wnt (talk) 20:28, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

I don't think Jimbo would do it anyways because it probably costs more to go to Kansas than the donation is. He probably might do it if someone offered a $100,000 or even a $1,000,000.—cyberpower ^Chat_Online 20:37, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Indeed.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 01:15, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=9497

Seriously. 5 years the most popular free-licensed lossless filetype has been unusable for large images. Thousands of files on Commons are affected; and, since this means people are required to upload lossy file formats instead of lossless, every day it's unfixed damages Commons' ability to act as an archival file source.

This is ridiculous, and shows basic incompetence, that basic functions that Commons requires to be minimally functional - the ability to show its files - can get broken over 5 years ago, and still not be fixed. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 10:42, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Invitation/plea

Greetings Mr. Wales. I wanted to post a link for you, and ask that you consider posting a sub-page to what I believe is a good questionnaire to help determine how this site ought to regard incivility. Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Civility enforcement/Questionnaire Obviously your input would be a valuable resource to include. I hope that you will! Sincerely, My76Strat (talk) 11:54, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Anent this, and partly as a result thereof, I wrote WP:Honour for which I invite comments. The whole amount of debate about "civility" I find to have parallels in other areas of Wikipedia. Collect (talk) 15:04, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

• Also consider Eternal September effect and societal norms: To my recent surprise, I have been finding occasional snippy (or snarky) comments from many experienced editors, or admins, who have also been quite helpful to others. Hence, a tinge of rudeness should be expected, everywhere. I guess newer rudeness could be attributed to the 1993 "Eternal September effect" where many crass, unruly newcomers have caused disruptive, or hateful, remarks to be considered acceptable, commonplace cybersphere actions. However, societies at large tend to contain large segments of abrupt, pushy ruffians, aiming towards open hostility. When I was developing some of the first computer email systems, I did not anticipate there would be, years later, the phrase "hatemail" as a commonplace term, but I suspect that shows how common the hostile attitudes have been for years. I advise to just take the high road, listen to advice from Jimbo, "don't feed the trolls" and try to respond with a quick reply that defuses any challenge in hostile comments, but also implies how further remarks will be ignored (not falling into baited anger). -Wikid77 (talk) 17:19, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

ArbCom is fundamentally broken

Jimmy, the motion to remove Elen from the ArbCom and revoke her CU status has failed only because of the number of inactive and recused ArbCom members. This means that a member of ArbCom can disclose everything and anything to the world but not have to worry about having their bit revoked. There is no community process to pick up where the ArbCom's policies fail. This is a patently absurd situation that begs for your remedy. Please don't allow someone who has admitted and been convicted of leaking private information to go unpunished. The above diff represents that ArbCom is fundamentally broken and remedy is urgent. 24.61.9.111 (talk) 04:09, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

The community is currently voting to fill more then half the seats on the committee, and Elen is up for reelection. The community can also amend the arbitration policy if it chooses. The remedy is to vote. Monty₈₄₅ 04:16, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

A general election is not what this situation calls for. It calls for justice and punishment. 24.61.9.111 (talk) 04:18, 30 November 2012 (UTC)