User talk:Jimbo Wales: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous edit Next edit →Content deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 23:00, 5 December 2014 view sourceTutelary (talk \| contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers17,196 edits →Global bans: c← Previous edit		Revision as of 23:25, 5 December 2014 view source HJ Mitchell (talk \| contribs)Edit filter managers, Autopatrolled, Checkusers, Oversighters, Administrators121,949 edits JW, if you want this here then revert me; otherwise, let's not indulge the troll—they're posting here through open proxies; that should tell you all you need to know.Next edit →
Line 158:		Line 158:
	:::::This would be a horrible idea as it would send the false message that we condone COI (paid advocacy) editing. Such edits should be immediate grounds for banning.--] (]) 21:36, 5 December 2014 (UTC)		:::::This would be a horrible idea as it would send the false message that we condone COI (paid advocacy) editing. Such edits should be immediate grounds for banning.--] (]) 21:36, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
	::::::I think you must have misunderstood me. This would just be a required disclosure for '''paid editing''' similar to one of the 3 required now. Paid editors now have their choice of declaring on their user page, on the talk page, or in the edit summary. This would just be a small variation of the edit summary, except that it would be required so that we can find paid edits easily and thus more easily monitor it, rather than searching around in 3 different places. i.e. paid editors can effectively hide their paid edits now. ]<sub>(<font color="cc6600">]</font>)</sub> 22:59, 5 December 2014 (UTC)		::::::I think you must have misunderstood me. This would just be a required disclosure for '''paid editing''' similar to one of the 3 required now. Paid editors now have their choice of declaring on their user page, on the talk page, or in the edit summary. This would just be a small variation of the edit summary, except that it would be required so that we can find paid edits easily and thus more easily monitor it, rather than searching around in 3 different places. i.e. paid editors can effectively hide their paid edits now. ]<sub>(<font color="cc6600">]</font>)</sub> 22:59, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

	== Question ==

	r. Wales,

	On 20 Mar 2007 you wrote:
	{{Cquote\|I refuse to go public with a statement that "Misplaced Pages welcomes
	self-identified pedophiles as editors as long as they follow our
	neutrality policies". But my preference is that we apply quiet
	diplomacy (and pressure where necessary) to keep that question from ever
	being raised in the first place.

	At the same time, I am not willing that we should have a witch hunt for
	pedophiles or anyone else. Nor that we state, categorically,
	"pedophiles are not allowed to edit wikipedia" -- I see no benefit to
	such a public stance.

	........................................................

	I am not an advocate of "don't ask, don't tell" in the US military. I
	think it is a bad policy in that case. But in OUR situation it seems to
	me to be just about right. We don't care what people are doing outside
	Misplaced Pages, but we do care about their behavior in wikipedia, including
	advocacy behavior on userpages which tends to disrupt the encyclopedia.}}

	In regards to this statement I'd like to ask you how the WMF would be able to protect children-editors from predators who're using email server provided by the foundation to contact the children. ] (]) 20:50, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

	:That would involve activity using the Wikimedia Foundation servers. My point above is that we literally cannot police what people do on their own time away from the site, say in their personal lives offline, or even (in most cases) activity on other websites. But if someone is using our servers to inappropriately contact children, then our policy is to ban them from the site and if circumstances dictate, report them to their local authorities. In the past this sort of thing was handled nearly exclusively by volunteers, but more recently the Foundation has decided to take more of this on board directly. Our terms of use very strongly ban such activity: "Soliciting personally identifiable information from anyone under the age of 18 for an illegal purpose or violating any applicable law regarding the health or well-being of minors." And we can and will report people appropriately for violations of this.--] (]) 21:34, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

	::I understand you cannot police what people do on their own time away from the site, but if you know for sure that a user whatever1111111 and a user whoever333333 are self-identified pedophiles, would you welcome them to Misplaced Pages as long as they do not engage in advocacy of pedophilia on Misplaced Pages? What means to do you have to check on how your servers are used by millions of your users? ] (]) 22:10, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
	:::Playing hypotheticals is a waste of time, and you know the answer so it's more than that. Anyone else may care to see ]. ] (]) 22:57, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

	== Global bans ==
	Could you please shade some light on global bans of ] and ]? Were they imposed to protect children and minors, editing Misplaced Pages? If they were imposed to protect children and minors, isn't it a rather good evidence that the WMF has mo means to detect inappropriate contacts with children in time and before it's too late? ] (]) 22:10, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
	::IP, the Wikimedia Foundation does not comment on global bans, beyond saying that if you have questions, you may contact legal@wikimedia.org. I think you forgot to start a new section here, so I did it for you. ] (]) 22:19, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
	::: Of course, they'll just give you the same response of 'WMF does not comment on global bans' speal. So for anyone who wanted any information regarding long term contributors on en.wiki who got globally banned (a very rare and serious thing), don't go seeking it. They won't tell you...disappointingly. ] (]) 23:00, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Revision as of 23:25, 5 December 2014

Welcome to my talk page. Please sign and date your entries by inserting ~~~~ at the end.
Start a new talk topic.

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

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

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

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

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

Archives

Index –index–

This manual archive index may be out of date.
Future archives: 184 185 186

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

(Manual archive list)

Article in the Register

The Register has published another article criticizing the Wikimedia Foundation for not using the $60 million in assets it has, which according to the article is "far more than the Wikimedia Foundation (WMF) needs to run a website." (I say "another" because of articles like this). Do you, Mr. Wales, have anything to say about this? I.e. what is the purpose of the $60 million that the foundation is said to be "sitting on"? Everymorning talk to me 18:45, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

The article is by Andrew Orlowski, someone's whose journalistic skills I can't comment on here. --NeilN 19:07, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

I can. Past experience shows he's got a very long history of attacking Misplaced Pages, often with one-sided and inaccurate or downright untrue claims. He's also got form as an egregious climate change denialist. Falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus. Prioryman (talk) 19:18, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Orlowski used to be amusing. About ten years ago. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 20:05, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

More diplomatic than I would have put it. :-) --NeilN 20:23, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for adding the link, NeilN. I must have forgotten to do so myself for some reason. Everymorning talk to me 20:32, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

This one is easy. I'm extremely proud of our financial track record and consider our level of reserves to be prudent and sensible - neither too large nor too small. Here is some typical advice about nonprofit reserves: "A commonly used reserve goal is 3-6 months' expenses. At the high end, reserves should not exceed the amount of two years' budget." How much should my nonprofit have in its operating reserve? For further information from the Wikimedia Foundation, see this question and answer.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 21:01, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Jimbo, that's really useful. It's strange that Orlowski, who is apparently a professional journalist, didn't do the basic fact-finding that would have given him those answers before he started frantically hammering his keyboard. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:59, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Just to expound on what Jimbo Wales said, the document he linked shows the 2014-2015 budget to be "$58.5 million in spending, including $8.2 million in spending allocated for grants". The article linked describes $60 million in reserve which is in line with a 12 month reserve, which is common. Rmosler | ● 22:22, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Whoever said Orlowski was a professional journalist? He appears to come up with his story before he writes it, then cherry-picks or misrepresents facts to support his preferred spin. This is just more of the same. Prioryman (talk) 10:49, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

I meant professional in what I consider the original sense, that is, someone who makes their living by means of full time employment in a particular activity. I did not intend to imply anything about the quality of the work carried out during that employment, nor about any ethical principles underlying the execution of it. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 20:00, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

You allege Misplaced Pages runs no adds, but how about 14,000+ advertisement articles you have? How many more are there]? For example User:CorporateM is an openly payed editor who writes good advertisement articles, yet still advertisements, and get paid for writing them.121.40.91.74 (talk) 19:12, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Example, please? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 20:00, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

It is important for a non-profit to be able to support its operations for a suitable period if funds dry up for some reason, note also that this figure is for assets - so it includes the servers, any advanced payments, office furniture - and it doesn't take account of liabilities. Orlowski has been attacking Misplaced Pages for years, and has really lost all credibility where Misplaced Pages is concerned. See for example where he implied that only Misplaced Pages editors would want to read Misplaced Pages... (and here for why his Immanuel Kant argument was wrong.) However it might be ethical to go back to the model where the banner is removed the minute we hit our target. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 19:04, 4 December 2014 (UTC).

The longevity of many very small non-profits (and especially large ones) rely on their endowments and safe investments to operate through tough times. Even minor things like accounting for inflation and increases in the cost of services becomes important when you operate off donations. Immanuel Kant is never someone I'd want to argue with, but his arguments have sizable holes once you pick through the layers. Gosh... David Hume is at Good Article nominations and we are here bringing Kant into the matter! Small world, especially since it is you who is bringing it up Rich! Haha. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 22:11, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Anyone who wants to know how easy it is to end up with an endowment that loses significant amount of its worth through bad investing can ask Harvard what happened to its endowment causing it to institute a hiring freeze and stop its new science campus plans when the economy imploded and the Great Recession began. The core of an endowment shouldn't be used for day to day expenses, it is a rainy day fund and a source of dividend creation that can subsidize the ebb and flow inherent in normal flows of revenue.Camelbinky (talk) 20:35, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Has the 5P and our !rules become too static?

When is the last time our !rules have been drastically changed, a !rule scrapped, or it's scope fundamentally enhanced or diminished? Despite having IAR and essays deploring instruction creep, we seem down the road towards more bureaucratic mud and a solidifying and codifying of our policies, guidelines, and important essays into "this is how it's always been done, and so it shall always be!" instead of what I always thought our !rules were intended to be- a statement of "this is how we solved this problem last time, adjust this !rule as new consensus finds new problems need different solutions, and adjust this policy/guideline accordingly to assist in the next time being more efficient". Are we stuck in a mode to which Thomas Jefferson was afraid the USA would find itself in- "some men look at constitutions with sanctimonious reverence and deem them like the ark of the covenant, too sacred to be touched". Perhaps we need to do what Jefferson had hoped the USA would do, have a new constitution every so often (more along the lines of modern French history I suppose, minus the whole Nazi collaboration part); in Misplaced Pages perhaps the equivalent would be to open up the main policies in a sandbox to be rewritten from scratch where there wont be those who say "but that's what it has said since 2009!" as an excuse for why some thing can not be changed. But this is just my opinion. I'm sure there will be a lot more. In opposition.Camelbinky (talk) 21:10, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

What changes in particular are you proposing? I do see a general issue that significant change is extremely difficult because the English Misplaced Pages is governed by consensus rather than by majority, and that consensus is difficult to achieve with as varied as the English Misplaced Pages. Are you proposing anything in particular, or just being abstract?

Is this perhaps a proposal for something along the lines of a Constitutional convention (political meeting)? Honestly, I could and do see some merit to having something like that take place on a fairly regular, if rather lengthy, interval. A little rebellion now and again is a good thing because it tends to make it easier to enact reasonable changes which would be glossed over because of "tradition" or lethargy or whatever you want to call it. Some sort of specific proposal of such a convention might get enough support to make some sort of periodic basic review possible. John Carter (talk) 22:14, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Last such gathering, if not advertised as such, was in London this last summer. A couple of thousand people participated, that's all. A very large number of RfCs added together, could perhaps count a similar number of participants. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 23:48, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Ah, yes, the meeting of the connected, the monied and the grant-worthy faithful. I couldn't attend because of financial constraints, despite living in the country where it was held. That said, I probably would not have attended anyway because I am a sort-of excluded group, being one of the profoundly deaf who cannot hear what is going on, who get next to no transcripts or sign-language facilities etc. I doubt that I missed anything of note but, please, don't let anyone suggest that Wikimania is representative of anything. From all the things I have read, in relation to many such events hosted around the world, it seems to be more of a fan club, a networking facility, an evangelistic meeting etc. I'm sure that it gives much pleasure to many people but let's not over-rate it. (Still not sure if I am allowed on this page or not - please let me know.) - Sitush (talk) 00:33, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Personally, I think if we were to have a real "meeting" of sorts to revise policy, the optimum place to do so would be here, online on wikipedia, where the discussion could be recorded in the edits and it would be basically transparent, as opposed to personal meetings which rarely are as transparent. John Carter (talk) 00:40, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

I would support an on-line convention. My upstream post maybe should have been addressed to the owner of this talk page. Because of the near-impossibility of achieving consensus on any significant change, any major change will have to come with the backing of the WMF. The English Misplaced Pages will never make any major changes in its pillars or policies unless it is pushed. I would strongly encourage the WMF to call for an on-line convention, but with the understanding that consensus does not require super-consensus, or some other set of rules that might really be adopted. More later. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:17, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Physical meetings aren't the place to accomplish anything of this magnitude. It's a little hard to change anything on WP, the decision-making system (which basically requires super-majorities agreeing to do something specific amidst a mass of sometimes contradictory simultaneous proposals) is very conservative — it preserves the status quo. Change happens slowly and piecemeal. The Village Pump works as well as anything — which is to say: pretty much not at all. I doubt much can be done in the way of fundamental alteration of the WP system. It is what it is. Carrite (talk) 04:25, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

I think it could be doable, maybe, if the approach taken were that there would be multiple "rounds" of proposals, probably more than one variant phrasing for each proposal, gathered and then voted on, with the highest-level proposals, probably for the pillars, first, and then for "core policies," and then policies describing specific applications of those policies, etc., etc., etc. If there were to be, for instance, a month or two allocated for each round, with a period of voting at the end of each round, possibly with some sort of ranked voting system and if necessary run-off voting after rounds if required, it might be doable. Having said that, it might also take up to or over a year to accomplish, and there is a real chance that interest would wane before the process were even remotely finished. But, for the comparative minutiae of the lowest-level proposals, even that might not be necessarily a bad thing. John Carter (talk) 15:59, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Is Misplaced Pages going to have a Constitution? GoodDay (talk) 06:10, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

On-Line Convention

The original poster, User:Camelbinky, asked when the last time was that our rules have been drastically changed, and whether the five pillars of Misplaced Pages have become too static. In looking over the five pillars, I don't see anything that I would propose be changed. Does the OP propose a change to the five pillars? I can identify several areas where our policies and procedures should be changed, but where we are locked in by the requirement for consensus. The problem is not so much, as the OP implied, that Wikipedians give too much value to how we have done things for several years, so much as that we don't have consensus for what to do differently. Consensus has become a burden. A few areas in which there is dissatisfaction but not consensus include Requests for Adminship (many editors think that the process is toxic, but some think that it has improved, and in any event there is no single consensus proposal for reform), paid commercial editing (some editors think that paid commercial editors should be banned, some think that paid commercial editing should be discouraged and must be disclosed, a few editors think that paid editing is actually a constructive influence), the Arbitration Committee (most editors think that it is too slow, some think that it should be split into subcommittees or meet in panels, some favor some other approach), administrators in general (some think that administrators should serve for a term of years, some think that they should be probationary for one year, et cetera), civility enforcement (some think that it should be stricter, some think that it should be looser, some think that there should be a list of naughty words), and so on. The problem is that we will never get consensus. My first question, for the owner of this talk page, is whether the WMF can intervene, perhaps by calling an on-line convention and specifying that it may change policies by majority rather than consensus. My second question, for the original poster, is whether he or she was proposing anything in particular, or just trying to start a discussion. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:40, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages's dismissal of majority rule in favor of hokey-pokey pseudo-consensus decision making and the absolutely unstructured RFC process is one of its original sins. It's a minor miracle that the site is still functioning after having been based on that shaky and flaky system of governance. Still, at this point it is what it is... Change is going to be slow and piecemeal. Carrite (talk) 17:08, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes, majority rule would be great. "Attention followers! The world must know that evolution is just an unproven idea foisted upon us by the godless! Go here and check a box. You don't have to think or reason, just push a button." --NeilN 22:49, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

I pretty much agree with NeilN. WP:CONSENSUS might be a somewhat vague idea but it is superior to the alternative which, on hot topics, is almost certain to result in issues with meatpuppetry etc. You only have to look at caste articles and the "calls to arms" on off-wiki forums to see that. The logical problem is the chicken-and-egg thing: we have policies that are supposedly derived from consensus and those policies are enforced using the consensus argument. - Sitush (talk) 00:07, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

There is a difference between content decisions and site governance. Carrite (talk) 01:07, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps. Robert has been trundling around with a lot of policy proposals etc in the last few weeks, as well as being involved in some other controversial things that have (sometimes) backfired. I guess this might be a wood/trees situation, where I'm looking at it from close-up and they're looking at it from 20,000 feet/metres/miles/kilometres. - Sitush (talk) 01:11, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Paid editing not incompatible with Misplaced Pages adminship?

Per the recommendation of Jehochman, I'm closing this thread down. For the record, my view on the principle is that paid editing is incompatible with Misplaced Pages adminship. As to the specifics of whatever this was all about, by the time I looked at it, the case had already been declined by ArbCom so it isn't relevant to discuss.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 15:51, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Jimbo, in view of the statements you've made on the subject of paid editing, I thought you should be aware of this arbitration request. It seems to me that Arbcom is about to set an unfortunate precedent here. Thanks. ReverendWayne (talk) 15:35, 3 December 2014 (UTC) No evidence has been submitted that the user in question is currently or has any plans of engaging in paid editing. So there is no precedent being set other than sanctions not being punitive.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 16:02, 3 December 2014 (UTC) So, as long as you stop when you get caught, it's all good? ReverendWayne (talk) 16:08, 3 December 2014 (UTC) She paid her dues at that time. No double Jeopardy.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 16:12, 3 December 2014 (UTC) It's not double jeopardy. She was fired by WMF for paid editing. Whether she should keep her admin status on en-wiki is a separate question. ReverendWayne (talk) 17:14, 3 December 2014 (UTC) As you can see from the discussion below, I am not the biggest fan of paid editing in the world. But what I don't understand is why you and another editor have suddenly come out of the blue to latch on to this particular issue. It serves no useful purpose and frankly I don't get it. Coretheapple (talk) 22:42, 3 December 2014 (UTC) Off hand, I'd say that RFarb looks more like a continuation of harassment against an editor than anything else. Reso lute 16:10, 3 December 2014 (UTC) I agree.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 16:12, 3 December 2014 (UTC) That's a pretty serious claim, and I ask that you provide diffs or retract it. The filing party has never interacted with Missvain/Sarah before. KonveyorBelt 17:51, 3 December 2014 (UTC) Which begs the question: What is Pudeo doing involving themselves then? As you say, no interaction before. Instead, they just allow an issue to go cold for nearly a year then whip out an RFArb without making even the pretense of discussion or dispute resolution. I won't say that Pudeo's actions fall to the level of bad faith, but I would consider them bad form. I also see an editor in ReverendWayne who has barely edited at all in the past year, was also apparently uninvolved in the original dispute, yet pops out of the woodwork demanding answers, even to the point of forum shopping this thread. A couple of the comments on the RFArb itself are wondering the same thing I am - what purpose, aside from griefing an editor, does this request serve? Reso lute 20:06, 3 December 2014 (UTC) Resolute, I haven't looked at your editing history. I think it's better to engage the substance of an argument than to investigate the person who's making it, but I understand that not everyone shares my view. My interest is in defending Misplaced Pages's administrator accountability policy, which has been weakened by allowing an administrator to ignore valid concerns of the community. Arbitration proceedings do provide a place for uninvolved editors to offer their opinions, and you may have noticed that I expressed similar concerns in the case of User:Fæ, with whom I was likewise uninvolved. I hope this satisfies your curiosity to some extent. ReverendWayne (talk) 23:54, 3 December 2014 (UTC) Paid editors have been required to disclose as much since June; before that there was no rule. ArbCom is ultimately about dispute resolution and rule enforcement, where all disputes are resolved and no rules are being broken, there's not much for them to do. WilyD 18:02, 3 December 2014 (UTC) Given Misplaced Pages's/WMF's spineless attitude on the subject, I don't think it's very fair to hold an editor or administrator to a standard that does not exist. Outlaw paid editing by administrators, make it retroactive if you want, and then crack down. But right now paid editors in the admin corps can work the gravy train as much as they want, as long as they disclose or exploit the gaping loopholes. Coretheapple (talk) 18:15, 3 December 2014 (UTC) I don't think that it is accurate to characterize the WMF as taking a spineless attitude toward paid editing. The push to tighten the rules on paid editing has come primarily from User:Jimbo Wales, who is a member of the board of the WMF, and also from the WMF board in general. The English Misplaced Pages is what is deeply divided on paid editing, because the English Misplaced Pages community is hamstrung by the mandate to act only on consensus. The ArbCom is bound by policies (and the lack of policies) made by the English Misplaced Pages community. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:45, 3 December 2014 (UTC) It's accurate because paid editing was not banned. Coretheapple (talk) 21:55, 3 December 2014 (UTC) Last year, I was given a 10 pound award by the UK Wikimedia branch for my efforts during a contest on wikisource. I didn't take it and one reason was, at least theoretically, that might in the eyes of some have made me a "paid editor" who might be seen as having some sort of COI regarding editing material related to wikipedia on that basis. Having said that, I tend to think that if we are to have paid editing, admins are probably the better people to do so. As admins, they tend to get more scrutiny than a lot of others, and they are at least theoretically aware of our policies and guidelines regarding content and might on that basis do work more compliant with other policies and guidelines than most others. Maybe. I don't like it, never have, and never will, but given the pathetic weakness of a lot of our content related to businesses in general, I can't object as much as I might like to otherwise. John Carter (talk) 18:23, 3 December 2014 (UTC) That would certainly be a straightfoward way of solidifying the image of admins as "super-users" who can get away with murder. Since I hate the doubletalk which holds that admins are just "ordinary users" without special privileges or prerogatives, I wouldn't mind that at all. Coretheapple (talk) 18:28, 3 December 2014 (UTC) I guess you decided to completely overlook part of my statement in your ongoing efforts of evangelization on this topic, particularly regarding the fact that admins in general get more scrutiny than others, in your obvious attempt to keep on the attack regarding this issue in any and all instances. Your own comment seems to be a more straightforward attempt at beating a horse than the comment to which it was referring. John Carter (talk) 18:37, 3 December 2014 (UTC) Yeah we all know how easy it is to remove administrators. Touche! Coretheapple (talk) 18:41, 3 December 2014 (UTC) I notice that by your statement above the only response you would even consider remotely acceptable would be removing their administrator status. You apparently consider that more important than verifying the content, or apparently anything else. Are you really interested in supervising any possible content which might have been done by a paid editor, or simply trying to play "gotcha" to those individuals who have been alleged to have done so? John Carter (talk) 18:55, 3 December 2014 (UTC) Look, if you want to give all administrators a ticket on the gravy train, I don't want to discourage you. It may not do Misplaced Pages's reputation any good, or help fund raising very much, but that's no concern of mine. More power to you, and have a nice day. Coretheapple (talk) 21:52, 3 December 2014 (UTC) Misplaced Pages talk:Requests for adminship#Desysopping proposal - and of course, if it takes off, feel free to run me through it. ;) WilyD 18:57, 3 December 2014 (UTC) From WP:ADMINACCT: "Administrators are expected to respond promptly and civilly to queries about their Misplaced Pages-related conduct and administrator actions, and to justify them when needed." That's the rule that's being broken here. Isn't paid editing by an administrator, even if it's not explicitly prohibited, a legitimate concern of the community? Administrators don't have the option to stonewall for a few months and let the whole thing blow over. And as reading the admin accountability policy ought to make clear, it does not apply only to misuse of admin tools. ReverendWayne (talk) 18:43, 3 December 2014 (UTC) You do not seem to believe that there may have been some degree of off-wiki discussion on this topic, nor that at least one person whom I know to be no true "fan" of wikipedia, Carrite, has said in his lengthy review of the matter he could find little if any evidence. In some cases, it might be more reasonable for some discussions involving privacy concerns to take place off-wiki. That may well have been done here. To the degree that some of the comments involved seem to be implying that any accusation must be treated as being factually accurate, and I'm not sure that is necessarily a reasonable conclusion in this or any matters of this type, I can say this seems to me to be perhaps less interest in solving a problem than perhaps finding a handy scapegoat to make some people feel happy or fulfilled. I would actually prefer trying to achieve the former myself. John Carter (talk) 19:00, 3 December 2014 (UTC) I'm a fan of Misplaced Pages, look what I did today: Fry's Army... Now the Wikimedia Foundation, them not so much... But even they have good eggs and bad eggs... —Tim /// Carrite (talk) 07:55, 4 December 2014 (UTC) Prior to the most recent Arbcom decision I'd suggest to take it there, now, I'd say 'Why is everyone such a cnt' on such issues?' AnonNep (talk) 22:14, 3 December 2014 (UTC) The request has been declined, but I made this statement right before in case anyone wants to investigate further.--The Devil's Advocate* _{tlk. cntrb.} 05:46, 4 December 2014 (UTC) Sarah, or Missvain discerned the notability of Zoe Quinn before the entire world did? How dare she? She wrote "blah, blah, blah" as a placeholder on her own sandbox page while fleshing out a reference? Get out the pitchforks. How fortunate we are to have a "detective" like The Devil's Advocate on duty here. Cullen Let's discuss it 08:16, 4 December 2014 (UTC) Yeah, that is totally a full and accurate description of what I presented in the first paragraph.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 08:26, 4 December 2014 (UTC) Jesus. Should have known that TDA's interest here would be in pushing his GamerGate agenda... Reso lute 15:28, 4 December 2014 (UTC) And again, we see transparently bogus complaints thrown at her, for which it's hard to imagine any purpose other than harassment. On the off chance there's actually some misbehaviour, I'd recommend reading The Boy Who Cried Wolf. WilyD 09:59, 4 December 2014 (UTC) This conversation should be closed down because it's rude to talk about a third party outside of our dispute resolution process. You can go talk to the editor directly if you want to. This page is for talking with Jimmy, or talking about Misplaced Pages, not gossiping about somebody. Jehochman 15:16, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Per the recommendation of Jehochman, I'm closing this thread down. For the record, my view on the principle is that paid editing is incompatible with Misplaced Pages adminship. As to the specifics of whatever this was all about, by the time I looked at it, the case had already been declined by ArbCom so it isn't relevant to discuss.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 15:51, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Jimbo, in view of the statements you've made on the subject of paid editing, I thought you should be aware of this arbitration request. It seems to me that Arbcom is about to set an unfortunate precedent here. Thanks. ReverendWayne (talk) 15:35, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

No evidence has been submitted that the user in question is currently or has any plans of engaging in paid editing. So there is no precedent being set other than sanctions not being punitive.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 16:02, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

So, as long as you stop when you get caught, it's all good? ReverendWayne (talk) 16:08, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

She paid her dues at that time. No double Jeopardy.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 16:12, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

It's not double jeopardy. She was fired by WMF for paid editing. Whether she should keep her admin status on en-wiki is a separate question. ReverendWayne (talk) 17:14, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

As you can see from the discussion below, I am not the biggest fan of paid editing in the world. But what I don't understand is why you and another editor have suddenly come out of the blue to latch on to this particular issue. It serves no useful purpose and frankly I don't get it. Coretheapple (talk) 22:42, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Off hand, I'd say that RFarb looks more like a continuation of harassment against an editor than anything else. Reso lute 16:10, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

I agree.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 16:12, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

That's a pretty serious claim, and I ask that you provide diffs or retract it. The filing party has never interacted with Missvain/Sarah before. KonveyorBelt 17:51, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Which begs the question: What is Pudeo doing involving themselves then? As you say, no interaction before. Instead, they just allow an issue to go cold for nearly a year then whip out an RFArb without making even the pretense of discussion or dispute resolution. I won't say that Pudeo's actions fall to the level of bad faith, but I would consider them bad form. I also see an editor in ReverendWayne who has barely edited at all in the past year, was also apparently uninvolved in the original dispute, yet pops out of the woodwork demanding answers, even to the point of forum shopping this thread. A couple of the comments on the RFArb itself are wondering the same thing I am - what purpose, aside from griefing an editor, does this request serve? Reso lute 20:06, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Resolute, I haven't looked at your editing history. I think it's better to engage the substance of an argument than to investigate the person who's making it, but I understand that not everyone shares my view. My interest is in defending Misplaced Pages's administrator accountability policy, which has been weakened by allowing an administrator to ignore valid concerns of the community. Arbitration proceedings do provide a place for uninvolved editors to offer their opinions, and you may have noticed that I expressed similar concerns in the case of User:Fæ, with whom I was likewise uninvolved. I hope this satisfies your curiosity to some extent. ReverendWayne (talk) 23:54, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Paid editors have been required to disclose as much since June; before that there was no rule. ArbCom is ultimately about dispute resolution and rule enforcement, where all disputes are resolved and no rules are being broken, there's not much for them to do. WilyD 18:02, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Given Misplaced Pages's/WMF's spineless attitude on the subject, I don't think it's very fair to hold an editor or administrator to a standard that does not exist. Outlaw paid editing by administrators, make it retroactive if you want, and then crack down. But right now paid editors in the admin corps can work the gravy train as much as they want, as long as they disclose or exploit the gaping loopholes. Coretheapple (talk) 18:15, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

I don't think that it is accurate to characterize the WMF as taking a spineless attitude toward paid editing. The push to tighten the rules on paid editing has come primarily from User:Jimbo Wales, who is a member of the board of the WMF, and also from the WMF board in general. The English Misplaced Pages is what is deeply divided on paid editing, because the English Misplaced Pages community is hamstrung by the mandate to act only on consensus. The ArbCom is bound by policies (and the lack of policies) made by the English Misplaced Pages community. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:45, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

It's accurate because paid editing was not banned. Coretheapple (talk) 21:55, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Last year, I was given a 10 pound award by the UK Wikimedia branch for my efforts during a contest on wikisource. I didn't take it and one reason was, at least theoretically, that might in the eyes of some have made me a "paid editor" who might be seen as having some sort of COI regarding editing material related to wikipedia on that basis.

Having said that, I tend to think that if we are to have paid editing, admins are probably the better people to do so. As admins, they tend to get more scrutiny than a lot of others, and they are at least theoretically aware of our policies and guidelines regarding content and might on that basis do work more compliant with other policies and guidelines than most others. Maybe. I don't like it, never have, and never will, but given the pathetic weakness of a lot of our content related to businesses in general, I can't object as much as I might like to otherwise. John Carter (talk) 18:23, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

That would certainly be a straightfoward way of solidifying the image of admins as "super-users" who can get away with murder. Since I hate the doubletalk which holds that admins are just "ordinary users" without special privileges or prerogatives, I wouldn't mind that at all. Coretheapple (talk) 18:28, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

I guess you decided to completely overlook part of my statement in your ongoing efforts of evangelization on this topic, particularly regarding the fact that admins in general get more scrutiny than others, in your obvious attempt to keep on the attack regarding this issue in any and all instances. Your own comment seems to be a more straightforward attempt at beating a horse than the comment to which it was referring. John Carter (talk) 18:37, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Yeah we all know how easy it is to remove administrators. Touche! Coretheapple (talk) 18:41, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

I notice that by your statement above the only response you would even consider remotely acceptable would be removing their administrator status. You apparently consider that more important than verifying the content, or apparently anything else. Are you really interested in supervising any possible content which might have been done by a paid editor, or simply trying to play "gotcha" to those individuals who have been alleged to have done so? John Carter (talk) 18:55, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Look, if you want to give all administrators a ticket on the gravy train, I don't want to discourage you. It may not do Misplaced Pages's reputation any good, or help fund raising very much, but that's no concern of mine. More power to you, and have a nice day. Coretheapple (talk) 21:52, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages talk:Requests for adminship#Desysopping proposal - and of course, if it takes off, feel free to run me through it. ;) WilyD 18:57, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

From WP:ADMINACCT: "Administrators are expected to respond promptly and civilly to queries about their Misplaced Pages-related conduct and administrator actions, and to justify them when needed." That's the rule that's being broken here. Isn't paid editing by an administrator, even if it's not explicitly prohibited, a legitimate concern of the community? Administrators don't have the option to stonewall for a few months and let the whole thing blow over. And as reading the admin accountability policy ought to make clear, it does not apply only to misuse of admin tools. ReverendWayne (talk) 18:43, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

You do not seem to believe that there may have been some degree of off-wiki discussion on this topic, nor that at least one person whom I know to be no true "fan" of wikipedia, Carrite, has said in his lengthy review of the matter he could find little if any evidence. In some cases, it might be more reasonable for some discussions involving privacy concerns to take place off-wiki. That may well have been done here. To the degree that some of the comments involved seem to be implying that any accusation must be treated as being factually accurate, and I'm not sure that is necessarily a reasonable conclusion in this or any matters of this type, I can say this seems to me to be perhaps less interest in solving a problem than perhaps finding a handy scapegoat to make some people feel happy or fulfilled. I would actually prefer trying to achieve the former myself. John Carter (talk) 19:00, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm a fan of Misplaced Pages, look what I did today: Fry's Army... Now the Wikimedia Foundation, them not so much... But even they have good eggs and bad eggs... —Tim /// Carrite (talk) 07:55, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Prior to the most recent Arbcom decision I'd suggest to take it there, now, I'd say 'Why is everyone such a c*nt' on such issues?' AnonNep (talk) 22:14, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

The request has been declined, but I made this statement right before in case anyone wants to investigate further.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 05:46, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Sarah, or Missvain discerned the notability of Zoe Quinn before the entire world did? How dare she? She wrote "blah, blah, blah" as a placeholder on her own sandbox page while fleshing out a reference? Get out the pitchforks. How fortunate we are to have a "detective" like The Devil's Advocate on duty here. Cullen Let's discuss it 08:16, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, that is totally a full and accurate description of what I presented in the first paragraph.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 08:26, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Jesus. Should have known that TDA's interest here would be in pushing his GamerGate agenda... Reso lute 15:28, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

And again, we see transparently bogus complaints thrown at her, for which it's hard to imagine any purpose other than harassment. On the off chance there's actually some misbehaviour, I'd recommend reading The Boy Who Cried Wolf. WilyD 09:59, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

This conversation should be closed down because it's rude to talk about a third party outside of our dispute resolution process. You can go talk to the editor directly if you want to. This page is for talking with Jimmy, or talking about Misplaced Pages, not gossiping about somebody. Jehochman 15:16, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Site bans

"I think a lot of people should be sitebanned for misbehavior and that the community will begin to grow and flourish again when we get rid of people who bring more drama than they are worth. "

This is really a weak argument. We have banned many many people, often for no discernible cause, and often our most productive people. Robust research into reasons for leaving showed that the arguments about the community environment were overblown, certainly those relating to "drama". It is far more productive to work to change the way people interact, than to simply ban them. Banning is a "one size fits all" mentality.

Regarding the recent case I believed that the ArbCom had managed, after much wrangling to put together a ban-free solution, and turned my attention away from the recent case, to find now that some of the more progressive measures have been overthrown by the reactionary ones is a disappointment, but is not unusual. I regret the loss of two potential (and past) assets to the project.

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 00:41, 5 December 2014 (UTC).

Undisclosed Paid Advocacy (UPA) templates and Policy

Jimmy, I have two questions apropos User:Jimbo_Wales/Paid_Advocacy_FAQ. 1)What should happen to content that is the product of UPA (Undisclosed Paid Advocacy)? Perhaps, any UPA prior to the ToS should be grandfathered, like content on Commons prior to tightened rules on using appropriate license tags and the like. And any content created after the ToS banned UPA, that is the product of UPA, be removed through the use of templates like {{subst:Copyvio|url}}/{{Copyvio}}. 2)Are you aware of any significant efforts, since the Terms of Use were changed to bar UPA, to create a specific policy page that says that the product of UPAE, like the product of a copyright violation, should be removed? I don't think anyone's tried to create an equivalent of {{subst:Copyvio|url}} to tag UPA. I'm sure most of the folks who make money performing PAE and UPAE will continue to !vote against such moves, but perhaps Paid Advocates could be excluded from such voting. I thought it worth asking Jimbo, (and unavoidably, his talk page stalkers) and CTA.--Elvey 01:42, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Anything to help deal with the scourge of paid advocates is worth considering. One problem with tagging UPA is that often it is somewhat ambiguous. (Often it isn't, of course.)--Jimbo Wales (talk) 08:24, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Pinged for this discussion. I didn't even know there was a FAQ. As to your question, I don't know the answer. The attitude toward both disclosed and undisclosed paid contributions is extremely permissive, so I don't see the point of working up a sweat about it. Usually when a company dispatches employees or contractors to an article it is extremely obvious, and if dealt with firmly can usually be gotten rid of so that uninvolved editors can be left to edit without harassment. I actually addressed one aspect of the topic on my user page just the other day. Coretheapple (talk) 15:46, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

By the way, Jimbo, having discovered the FAQ I've taken the liberty of adding a paragraph, so as to close a loophole that I've seen mentioned here and there. If it's not what you want, please advise and I will take it out. Coretheapple (talk) 16:30, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm generally in favor of anything that would tend to minimize paid advocacy editing, but I also really dislike all the tags that get left on article pages, sometimes for years after the problem has been addressed (I suggest putting most tags on the talk page). For the most part, the proposed tag would be doing the same thing as the advertising tags or the NPOV tag - so I'll say that there's no need for a new tag.

That said, there is a need for editors to go clean up the advertisers' (and the paes') messes. Perhaps we could organize Wiki-project:PAE cleanup. There have been a couple of projects that say that they try to minimize PAE problems, but to my reading they've ended up giving paid editors advice on how to skirt the rules - not something I want. If folks are really interested in a real PAE cleanup project, please let me know. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 16:21, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

What is really needed is a check button under the edit summary with THIS IS A COI EDIT (linked to the policy page), right next to THIS IS A MINOR EDIT. If clicked, this would tag the summary as a COI edit so that the change could be reviewed by an unconnected editor. No need to deface the article for all time with a flag. Carrite (talk) 17:22, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

I would support that, as long as checking the box results in an immediate revert and ban on further editing in article space.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 21:35, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

That's a good idea. Coretheapple (talk) 17:30, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Make the check box for THIS IS A PAID EDIT and require it to be used in the case of paid edits. I'm 100% in favor of that. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 18:04, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Who should I ping to get a reading on the technical issues of including such a box, Philippe (WMF)? Probably not, but he should know who to contact. The technical issues, as I see them, would be

1. how to get a read out on your watchlist, perhaps with a bolded P or PE or Pde (I've got a personal preference here) next to the paid entry. Perhaps only paid entries on a special list where you don't need to specify the articles you're interested in.

2. How long would it take to get up and running? Less than the time needed to pass a new policy (since it would have to be a requirement to click the box for paid entries)?

Smallbones_(smalltalk) 20:21, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

This would be a horrible idea as it would send the false message that we condone COI (paid advocacy) editing. Such edits should be immediate grounds for banning.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 21:36, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

I think you must have misunderstood me. This would just be a required disclosure for paid editing similar to one of the 3 required now. Paid editors now have their choice of declaring on their user page, on the talk page, or in the edit summary. This would just be a small variation of the edit summary, except that it would be required so that we can find paid edits easily and thus more easily monitor it, rather than searching around in 3 different places. i.e. paid editors can effectively hide their paid edits now. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 22:59, 5 December 2014 (UTC)